This chapter focuses on confessions and on the defendant’s pre-trial silence. It explains how a defendant may be convicted on the evidence of a confession alone. It analyses the definition of a confession as specified in s82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and how a confession proffered by the prosecution or by a co-defendant may be excluded by rule under PACE. The chapter also considers the preservation of the common law discretion to exclude confession evidence as well as the procedure for police interrogation of suspects under PACE. It examines recent case law on the significance of lack of access to legal advice of a suspect under interrogation. It concludes with an examination of how the jury at trial may draw an inference of guilt under ss34, 36, and 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (CJPO), sections which have eroded the right to silence. The influence of the Strasbourg jurisprudence in this area is outlined.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on confessions and on the defendant’s pre-trial silence. It explains how a defendant may be convicted on the evidence of a confession alone. It analyses the definition of a confession as specified in section 82(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and how a confession proffered by the prosecution or by a co-defendant may be excluded by rule under PACE. The chapter also considers the preservation of the common law discretion to exclude confession evidence as well as the procedure for police interrogation of suspects under PACE. It concludes with an examination of how the jury at trial may draw an inference of guilt under sections 34, 36, and 37 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Chapter
Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. A suspect’s silence in response to questioning is liable to arouse suspicion: the normal reaction to an accusation, it is widely believed, is to volunteer a response. This chapter discusses the following: the so-called right to silence; permissible inferences drawn from the defendant’s silence at common law; the failures provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: permissible inferences drawn from the defendant’s failure to mention facts, failure to testify, failure or refusal to account for objects etc, or failure to account for presence; permissible inferences drawn from lies told by the defendant: Lucas directions; permissible inferences drawn from false alibis put forward by the defendant.
Chapter
Titles in the Core Text series take the reader straight to the heart of the subject, providing focused, concise, and reliable guides for students at all levels. A suspect’s silence in response to questioning is liable to arouse suspicion. This chapter discusses: the so-called right to silence; permissible inferences drawn from the defendant’s silence at common law; the failures provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: permissible inferences drawn from the defendant’s failure to mention facts, failure to testify, failure or refusal to account for objects etc, or failure to account for presence; permissible inferences drawn from lies told by the defendant: Lucas directions; permissible inferences drawn from false alibis put forward by the defendant.
