Evidence - interview - defendant refusing to answer questions but giving prepared statement disclosing full defence - jury not entitled to draw adverse inferences from silence

R v Knight: CA (Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Mitting and Judge Rivlin QC): 29 July 2003

The defendant was accused of two offences of indecent assault.

When interviewed by police, his solicitor read a prepared statement giving an account wholly consistent with his testimony at trial.

But on solicitors' advice, he declined to answer questions, stating at trial that he was worried about becoming confused and answering incorrectly.

The judge directed the jury that under section 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 they might draw an adverse inference from his silence, namely that the defendant wished to prevent his account from being tested by police questioning.

The defendant was convicted and appealed against conviction.

William Mousley (assigned by Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant; Jonathan Sharp (instructed by CPS, Portsmouth) for the Crown.

Held, allowing the appeal, that section 34(1)(a) of the 1994 Act permitted adverse inferences to be drawn from a suspect's failure to mention when questioned any fact he could reasonably have been expected to mention and which he relied on in his defence; that the purpose of that provision was to procure the early disclosure of a suspect's account and not the scrutiny and testing of it by police in interview; that the latter would be a significantly greater intrusion into a suspect's general right to silence than the requirement to disclose his factual defence intended by Parliament; that there could be no adverse inference as the defendant gave his full account in the statement, mentioning all the facts he later relied on and did not depart from that in the witness box; and that the conviction was unsafe and would be quashed.

Cheating public revenue - Hansard interview - no caution administered - breach of code of practice

R v Gill and another: CA (Lord Justice Clarke, Mr Justice Astill and Judge Beaumont QC): 31 July 2003

The defendants were interviewed by special compliance officers of the Inland Revenue in relation to suspected tax frauds.

At the trial on charges of cheating the public revenue, they sought to exclude evidence from that interview (known as a Hansard interview) on the ground that the provisions of code C of the codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had not been followed in that they had not been cautioned.

The judge ruled that, having regard to the history and practice of Hansard interviews, they were part of a civil procedure to collect tax and not part of a criminal investigation.

Therefore he permitted the evidence to be adduced.

The defendants were convicted and appealed against conviction on the grounds that the judge's ruling was wrong.

Philip Sapsford QC (instructed by Stringer Saul) for the appellants; Anthony Abell and Valerie Charbit (instructed by the Solicitor, Commissioners of Inland Revenue) for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Held, dismissing the appeals, that while it was clear from the nature of a Hansard interview that in cases of tax fraud the Revenue would be influenced by a full confession in deciding whether to accept a money settlement, there was no undertaking to do so or to refrain from instituting criminal proceedings; that tax fraud involved the commission of a criminal offence, so that the special compliance officers were charged with the duty of investigating offences, within the meaning of section 67(9) of the 1984 Act; and that, accordingly, code C applied to the interview; but that the admission of the statements made in the interview did not have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to have admitted them.