Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 November 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1350/pojo.77.3.257.54088 |
| Published date | 01 November 2004 |
| Author | William J. Priestley |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
WILLIAM J. PRIESTLEY
Legal Correspondent
Email: aretecs@hotmail.com
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Adverse Inference Arising out of Accused’s Silence in
Interview
R v Hoare and Pierce Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
April 2004
Adverse inference; amphetamine sulphate; Beckles v UK
(2002) ECHR 656; Condron v UK (2000) Crim LR 679;
conspiring together to supply; Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act 1994, s. 34; legal advice; ‘no comment’
interviews; producing a class B drug; speed; R v. Argent
(1997) 2 Cr App R 27; R v Betts and Hall (2001) 2 Cr
App R 257; Murray v UK (1993) 23 EHRR; unlawful
detention.
This case was an appeal against conviction at Lewes Crown
Court on 19 March 2003 of producing a class B drug and
conspiring to supply such drug, in the case of Hoare, and of
producing a class B drug, in the case of Pierce. In convicting
Hoare, the judge in the case sentenced him to a total of 12 years’
imprisonment. Pierce was sentenced to 10 years in respect of the
single charge.
The law
Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
states:
(1) Where, in any proceedings against a person for an
offence, evidence is given that the accused—
(a) at any time before he was charged with the offence,
on being questioned under caution by a constable
trying to discover whether or by whom the offence
had been committed, failed to mention any fact
relied on in his defence in those proceedings; or
(b) on being charged with the offence or officially
informed that he might be prosecuted for it, failed to
mention any such fact,
being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the
time the accused could reasonably have been expected to
The Police Journal, Volume 77 (2004) 257
mention when so questioned, charged or informed, as the
case may be.
The facts
This case arose from a drugs manufacture-and-supply operation
between 1998 and 2002 in which Mr Hoare produced large
quantities of amphetamine sulphate, ‘speed’, in a converted oast-
house in Kent using legitimately purchased chemicals bought for
use in his scientific manufacture-and-supply company. Mr Pierce
became involved in the supply side of the operation from 2000
onwards. The prosecution case was that Mr Hoare along with
others, though not Mr Pierce, manufactured ‘speed’ in part of the
converted oast-house. Based on the amount of drugs found by
the police and the quantity of chemicals bought over the four-
year period, the total street value of the drugs produced was
estimated to be around £20m.
Both Mr Hoare and Mr Pierce were arrested on 18 July 2002
and were interviewed the following day at Eastbourne police
station with both men’s solicitors being present. At interview,
Mr Hoare’s solicitor suggested that the caution might mislead his
client and implied that he had advised him not to answer any
questions. The solicitor for Mr Pierce suggested that the deten-
tion of his client was unlawful due to the length of time in
custody without charge and that as a consequence the interview
was also unlawful. He had advised Mr Pierce not to answer any
questions.
The trial
During the trial extensive evidence obtained by the police during
surveillance of the drugs operation was put to the jury. In
addition, following a ruling by the judge, evidence of the ‘no
comment’ interviews was introduced in relation to the drawing
of adverse inference.
The judge rejected submissions on behalf of both Mr Hoare
and Mr Pierce that no adverse inference should be drawn from
their silence during questioning. The judge directed that it was a
matter for the jury as to whether they drew any adverse inference
in the case against either man.
The appeal
With regard to the question of adverse inference the grounds for
the appeal were that:
the judge’s direction to the jury to consider drawing adverse
inference was wrong because evidence of the interview questions
258 The Police Journal, Volume 77 (2004)
To continue reading
Request your trial