Questions and Answers
What does section 38(1) state regarding proceedings against a person?
Which of the following sections are explicitly mentioned as not allowing inferences from silence to lead to a conviction?
What is the implication of a judge refusing to grant an application based solely on inferences from silence?
What is the purpose of section 34 of the CJPO 1994?
Signup and view all the answers
What should be established before directing a jury about the defendant's silence?
Signup and view all the answers
Under what circumstance does section 34 not apply?
Signup and view all the answers
What does section 38(3) pertain to?
Signup and view all the answers
What is a potential misconception regarding the direction to the jury about the defendant's 'no comment' response?
Signup and view all the answers
What was a crucial issue regarding D's DNA on the explosive device?
Signup and view all the answers
Why was the agreement between experts criticized by the Court of Appeal?
Signup and view all the answers
What does CJPO 1994, s. 34, allow a jury to consider?
Signup and view all the answers
Under what circumstance might silence be the best response for a legal adviser?
Signup and view all the answers
What was the Court's stance on the failure of the interviewer to provide relevant information?
Signup and view all the answers
What circumstance may lead to reasonable expectations of a case from the defendant?
Signup and view all the answers
What implication does the Court of Appeal's observation about direct transfer of DNA suggest?
Signup and view all the answers
What does a s. 34 direction pertain to in this context?
Signup and view all the answers
What is outlined as a key element of the judicial direction involving CJPO 1994, s. 34, regarding a defendant's right to silence?
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following is NOT a component of the judicial direction outlined in the Compendium when applying CJPO 1994, s. 34?
Signup and view all the answers
What instruction should juries receive regarding drawing conclusions from an accused's silence according to CJPO 1994, s. 34?
Signup and view all the answers
In which scenario would drawing an inference against the defendant be considered inappropriate?
Signup and view all the answers
What role do the advocates play in the direction concerning the unmentioned facts in defense?
Signup and view all the answers
What should jurors consider concerning the prosecution's case at the time of the interview?
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following statements accurately reflects the nature of inference that may be drawn when a defendant remains silent?
Signup and view all the answers
What must a trial judge ensure when directing the jury regarding the CJPO 1994 provisions?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
CJPO 1994 and Inferences from Silence
- Clear judicial direction is required when relying on CJPO 1994, s. 34 regarding inferences drawn from an accused's silence.
- Notable elements to consider include the accused's right to remain silent and the potential implications of not mentioning specific facts.
Key Directions to the Jury
- Remind jurors that the accused was cautioned against self-incrimination and that silence might lead to adverse conclusions.
- Collaborate with advocates to identify unmentioned facts that are now relied on for defense, including reasons for not mentioning those facts and possible conclusions regarding their truthfulness.
- Consider whether the prosecution case prior to the interview necessitated a response and assess if any explanations for the silence are reasonable.
- Draw adverse conclusions only if it's "fair and proper" to do so and refrain from convicting primarily based on this inference.
Legal Context of Silence
- Section 34 does not apply if the defense argues simply that the prosecution has failed to prove its case without introducing previously undisclosed facts.
- Directing a jury to infer guilt from silence alone contradicts the intent of s. 34.
Case Context
- The case involved an accused who, on legal advice, chose not to respond to police inquiries and did not provide evidence during the trial.
- A jury direction suggesting that the accused’s half-hearted responses implied a “sinister reason” for silence was deemed inappropriate unless linked to specific unmentioned facts.
Expert Testimonies and DNA Evidence
- Presence of the accused’s DNA on an explosive device raised questions about innocent indirect transfer, highlighting the complexity of forensic evidence.
- Experts noted that expecting detailed explanations for DNA presence isn't realistic; however, individuals may still possess alternative explanations based on personal knowledge or circumstances.
- Broad agreement between experts was criticized for potentially undermining individual accountability in self-defense situations.
Right to Information and Fairness in Interviews
- Failure to disclose pertinent information during interviews impacts the appropriateness of drawing inferences from silence.
- Defendants may be advised to remain silent if insufficient information is provided to assess the case effectively.
Example Application of s. 34
- A direction under s. 34 was deemed necessary in an instance where the accused did not mention that an allegation of assault was fabricated by a witness, indicating potential relevance to the defense.
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
This quiz focuses on the key elements of judicial directions under the CJPO 1994, s. 34. It explores the implications of an accused's right to silence and how it can affect inferences drawn in legal proceedings. Test your understanding of these legal principles and their applications.