Show Summary Details
Evidence

Evidence (10th edn)

Roderick Munday
Page of

Printed from Oxford Law Trove. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 03 October 2022

p. 45611. Drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s omissions, lies, or false alibislocked

p. 45611. Drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s omissions, lies, or false alibislocked

  • Roderick MundayRoderick MundayBencher of Lincoln’s Inn Fellow Emeritus of Peterhouse, Cambridge Reader Emeritus in Law, University of Cambridge

Abstract

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.

You do not currently have access to this chapter

Sign in

Please sign in to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription