In adverse inference directions, is a suspect’s state of mind a ‘fact’? Andrew Smith examines the case law
- In R v Leslie, a murder case, the defendant argued that his intent was not a ‘fact’ for the purposes of s 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
- The court found that his state of mind was ‘a fact just as much as any action or inaction’.
- This article analysis the judgment and considers the usefulness of prepared statements in cases involving adverse inference.
Whenever a suspect is interviewed under caution in a criminal investigation, regardless of the offence under investigation, their solicitor must always give advice about s 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. This is the section that creates the ‘adverse inference’—the possibility that a judge might direct a jury that they may draw a negative conclusion against a defendant if they rely on facts in their defence at trial which they failed to mention when being questioned as a suspect.
Few provisions relating to criminal investigations
