Is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’ capable of triggering adverse inferences? Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Smith of Corker Binning examines how R v Leslie reshapes the debate
The Court of Appeal confirmed that mental state can indeed be a ‘fact’ under s 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Yet it also suggested that, in most cases, suspects cannot reasonably be expected to articulate the mental element during interview.
Smith questions how far that generalisation holds, particularly in financial crime, where intent is often the battleground. Drawing on cases such as R v Black, he shows how bare denials can be fatal if later expanded at trial. Prepared statements, long treated as a safe default, emerge as a double-edged sword.
The article offers a practical warning: interview strategy must be tailored to the evidence, not comfortingly formulaic.
RELATED ARTICLES
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77b6c3cc_1)
