Adverse Inference in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • South Bucks District Council v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and another
    • House of Lords
    • 01 Jul 2004

    They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds.

  • R v Condron (William)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 17 Oct 1996

    Paragraph 5 goes somewhat further than the specimen direction and the direction given by the Judge in this case. Having regard to the views of this Court in Cowan, we consider that it is desirable that a direction on the lines indicated above should be given. There is as much a need to remind the jury of the circumstances in which a proper inference may be drawn under section 34 as under section 35. There is no basis for distinguishing between the sections in that respect.

  • Claire Manzi v King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 29 Ago 2018

    First, Wisniewski is not authority for the proposition that there is an obligation to draw an adverse inference where the four principles are engaged. An appellate court will be hesitant to interfere with the exercise of such a discretion given that it is being exercised in the knowledge of all the nuances of evidence that are in the knowledge of the judge who receives that evidence.

  • R v Hoare (Kevin); R v Pierce (Graham)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 02 Abr 2004

    It is not the purpose of section 34 to exclude a jury from drawing an adverse inference against a defendant because he genuinely or reasonably believes that, regardless of his guilt or innocence, he is entitled to take advantage of that advice to impede the prosecution case against him. In such a case the advice is not truly the reason for not mentioning the facts.

  • Daniel Terence Goddard and Robin Jack Fallick v R
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 27 Jul 2012

    We think that the legal position can be summarised as follows: (1) in all cases where a judge is asked to consider a submission of no case to answer, the judge should apply the "classic" or "traditional" test set out by Lord Lane CJ in Galbraith. (2) Where a key issue in the submission of no case is whether there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the defendant from a combination of factual circumstances based upon evidence adduced by the prosecution, the exercise of deciding that there is a case to answer does involve the rejection of all realistic possibilities consistent with innocence.

  • R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte T.C. Coombs & Company
    • House of Lords
    • 14 Feb 1991

    In our legal system generally, the silence of one party in face of the other party's evidence may convert that evidence into proof in relation to matters which are, or are likely to be, within the knowledge of the silent party and about which that party could be expected to give evidence. Thus, depending on the circumstances, a prima facie case may become a strong or even an overwhelming case.

  • R v Chenia (Shokat)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 01 Nov 2002

    53. It would in our view have been desirable for the judge to include a direction of the kind suggested, namely that no question of drawing an adverse inference could arise unless the jury were sure that there was a case to answer. However, we do not think that this trial could possibly be held to be unfair or the conviction unsafe on that ground. That is because no jury could possibly have concluded that there was no case to answer on the facts.

See all results
  • Civil Evidence Act 1995
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1995
    ......of proceedings and costs, and. . . (b) as a matter adversely affecting the weight to be given to the. evidence in accordance with ...which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or. otherwise of the ......
  • Civil Evidence Act 1968
    • UK Non-devolved
    • 1 de Enero de 1968
    ......that to prevent his from doing so would adversely. affect the intelligibility of his evidence. . (3) Where in any civil ...the court may draw any reasonable inference from the circumstances. in which the statement was made or otherwise came. ......
  • The Education Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2021
    • Wales
    • 1 de Enero de 2021
    ....... (2) The President, or the tribunal panel, may draw such adverse inferences as they think fit from a party’s failure to comply with any ......
  • The Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales Regulations 2012
    • Wales
    • 1 de Enero de 2012
    ......(2) The President or the tribunal panel may draw such adverse inferences as the President or the tribunal panel thinks fit from a ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
  • ‘Substantial and Radical Change’: A New Dawn for Scottish Criminal Procedure?
    • Núm. 75-5, Septiembre 2012
    • The Modern Law Review
    This paper discusses the recommendations of the Carloway Review, which was established to review law and practice in criminal cases following the introduction in Scotland of a right to legal assist...
    ......, the r emoval of the corroboration requirement, the r ejection of adverse inference provisions, and a change in the manner in which the appeal ......
  • The Evolution of the Defence Statement
    • Núm. 74-3, Junio 2010
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
    ...... Keywords . Disclosure; Procedure; Defence statement; Content; Adverse . inference . More than a decade after its initial implementation, it is ......
  • Australia: Reform of Criminal Trial Procedure — The Limits of the Right to Silence
    • Núm. 8-2, Abril 2000
    • Journal of Financial Crime
    • 156-161
    The report of the Working Group on Criminal Trial Procedure did not discuss the right to silence in any detail or arrive at any conclusion about it. There were, it appears, two reasons for this. Fi...
    ......, namely, providing for a jury to be capable of drawing an adverse inference from a failure to disclose and for a defendant to be told that a ......
  • Adverse Inferences from Silence and Negligent Legal Advice
    • Núm. 81-1, Febrero 2017
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT