Court of Appeal
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.5.392 |
| Published date | 01 October 2007 |
| Date | 01 October 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Silence at Interview: Adequacy of Directions
R vLowe [2007] EWCA Crim 833
The appellant, L, was convicted in December 2000 of conspiracy to
supply controlled drugs contrary to s. 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977
and sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment. His appeal against conviction
and sentence was dismissed. The matter was referred back to the Court
of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under s. 9 of the
Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The basis of the reference was that there was
misdirection by the trial judge in relation to the application of the
provisions of s. 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The trial in question involved a substantial number of other defend-
ants, 10 in number, and the conspiracy was alleged to have spread over
the period from 1 June 1998 to 28 February 2000. The prosecution case
included evidence from those who carried out reconnaissance of the
various members of the conspiracy, the monitoring of telephone calls,
the finding on a number of occasions of heroin and other drugs in the
possession of various conspirators and finally the finding of not only
heroin at what was described as the ‘safe house’, but also a substantial
quantity of money in the possession of this appellant.
The appellant was interviewed under caution on numerous occasions
and sometimes answered questions put to him but on other occasions he
remained silent either in part or for the whole interview. On some
occasions he lied in interview and later offered numerous reasons at trial
to explain both the lies and silence. In particular, the appellant admitted
at trial that he was involved in a ‘stolen car’ business and sought, in part,
to explain his earlier lies and silence at interview as being due to fear at
this illicit enterprise being discovered and motivated by a desire not to
incriminate himself.
The appellant argued, inter alia, that the judge had:
1. failed to deal adequately with the fact that he was entitled to
remain silent during police questioning;
2. failed to direct the jury that if they believed his explanation for his
silence in interview, namely that he was not involved in drugs but
had been involved in a stolen car business, then they could not
draw an adverse inference; and
3. failed to direct the jury that they had to be sure that the real reason
for the failure to mention relevant facts at interview was that the
defendant had no innocent explanation that could be given.
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL
,a trial judge should remind a jury that
a defendant is not under any obligation to answer questions; he has a
right to silence and care should always be taken to avoid leaving a jury
with the impression that silence in interview could in itself permit the
drawing of adverse inferences. Although the trial judge should have
392
To continue reading
Request your trial