Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, S. 34: Silence in Reliance on Legal Advice
| Published date | 01 April 2005 |
| Date | 01 April 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.69.2.119.63523 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
of a state reveals much about the society in which it exists then arguably,
in a society which endeavours to respect individual rights, a wrongful
conviction should not merely be quashed, but its victim should also be
compensated for the gross injustice that has occurred, and the con-
sequent injury caused, and additionally it ought to enable him or her the
chance to reintegrate into the society from which he or she may have
been withdrawn. In recent years there have been moves towards con-
sidering a more holistic approach to reintegrating victims of miscarriages
back into society (see Royal Courts of Justice Citizens Advice Bureau,
Miscarriages of Justice Project, Progress Report, 2003) and such initiatives
have to be welcomed and encouraged.
Nick Taylor
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s. 34:
Silence in Reliance on Legal Advice
R v Beckles [2004] EWCA Crim 2766
The defendant was tried, with others, on an indictment alleging robbery
and attempted murder. In substance, the Crown alleged that the victim
had been robbed and then pushed out of a window by the defendant and
others. After arrest, the defendant told police officers that the victim had
jumped from the window. Later in formal interview, the defendant’s
solicitor informed the interviewing police officers that he had advised
his client not to answer questions. When questioned, the defendant
merely said that he had not been in the room at the material time and
that the victim had not been pushed out of the window. At trial, he gave
evidence that he had not been in the room with the victim at the
material time. He told the jury that he had wanted to provide a full
explanation during police interview but had not done so because of the
legal advice he had been given. The trial judge directed the members of
the jury that if they believed his reason for not answering ‘was a good
one’, then they should not hold it against him. After conviction and an
unsuccessful appeal, the defendant appealed to the European Court of
Human Rights which concluded that there had been a violation of the
defendant’s rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on
Human Rights since there had been an...
To continue reading
Request your trial