Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 April 1977 |
| Date | 01 April 1977 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201837704100207 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Judicial Committee
of
the Privy Council
Comments
on
Cases
DEFENDANT'S
SILENCE
WHEN ACCUSED
Parkes v.
The
Queen
In R. v. Christie
(1914,
A.C.
545,554).,
Lord
Atkinson
said
that
when
a
statement
is
made
in
the
presence
of
an
accused
person,
he
may
accept
it
by
word
or
conduct,
action
or
demeanour,
and
it
is for
the
jury
to
decide
whether
he has
accepted
it in
whole
or
in
part.
In R. v. Mitchell
(1892,17
Cox
C. C.
503,508),
Cave
J.
had
pointed
out
that
the
admissibility
of
statements
of
this
kind
rests
upon
the
common
sense
proposition
that
when
acharge is
made
against a
person
in
that
person's
presence, it is
reasonable
to
expect
that
he will
immediately
deny
it.
The
court
there
concluded
that
"undoubtedly,
when
persons
are speaking
on
even
terms,
and
a
charge is
made,
and
the
person
charged
says
nothing
and
expresses
no
indignation,
and
does
nothing
to
repel
the
charge,
that
is
some
evidence to
show
that
he
admits
the
charge to be
true."
In Hall v.
The Queen
(1971,
1
All
E.R.
322,
324;
35
j.C.L.
187),
the
Judicial
Committee
of
the
Privy
Council
emphasised
that
a
person
is
entitled
to
refrain
from
answering a
question
put
to
him
for
the
purpose
of
discovering
whether
he has
committed
acrime.
The
Board
added
that
in
very
exceptional
circumstances
as
inference
may
be
drawn
from
afailure
to
give an
explanation
or disclaimer,
but
silence
alone
cannot
give rise
to
an
inference
that
the
truth
of
the
accusation
is
accepted.
In
that
case,
however,
it is
to
be
noted
that
the
accused's
silence was
on
the
occasion
of
a
police
officer
informing
him
that
someone
else
had
made
an
accusation
against
him. In Parkes v. The
Queen
(1976,
3
All
E.R.
380),
the
question
arose
of
the
applicability
of
the
dictum
in Hall v.
The
Queen
(supra)
to
acase in
which
the
defendant
was accused
by
one
who
was
not
a
person
in
authority.
The
facts
were
that
the
appellant,
who
had
been
convicted
of
murder,
lived in
the
same
house
as
the
deceased,
though
in a
separate
room.
The
deceased's
mother
lived
next
door.
The
two
houses
had
a
common
courtyard.
The
mother
found
her
daughter
lying
bleeding
in
her
room.
She
went
into
the
yard
and
there
saw
the
appellant
with
a
rachet
knife
in his
hand.
She
twice
accused
him
of
having
stabbed
her
daughter.
He
made
112
To continue reading
Request your trial