R v Betts and Hall
[2001] EWCA Crim 224
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a suspect stays silent in police interview on legal advice, an adverse inference under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 may be drawn only if the jury is sure that the true reason for the silence was that he had no answer, or none that he believed would stand up to questioning or investigation: following Condron v United Kingdom, it is the genuineness of the decision to rely on the advice, not its quality, that matters. A bare admission at trial of a fact asserted by the prosecution is not a fact relied on capable of triggering the section.
ਤੱਥ
Betts and Hall were convicted at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after an attack on Nigel Caris, who was struck with a hammer and a pick-axe handle at a scrap yard and had his arm broken; Caris picked out both men at identification parades. In interview each remained silent on his solicitor's advice, given because the police were said not to have sufficiently disclosed the material in their possession; Hall also had a speech impediment. The trial judge directed the jury that they could draw an adverse inference if the reasons advanced for silence were not valid, and listed among the facts not mentioned matters which were bare admissions of the prosecution case or which Betts had in fact mentioned in a later interview.
ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦਾ ਸਾਰ
The Court of Appeal (Kay LJ giving the judgment of the court) allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions as unsafe. Interpreting section 34 compatibly with article 6 through sections 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and taking into account Condron v United Kingdom, the court held that the direction wrongly invited the jury to assess the quality of the appellants' decision not to answer questions, when what matters is the genuineness of the decision: if the explanation of reliance on legal advice may be true, no inference can be drawn — though the advice provides no shield where it merely disguises having no answer. The judge had also wrongly treated bare admissions of the prosecution case as facts relied on. Because the jury may not have appreciated that inferences required sureness that the appellants had no answer that would stand up to questioning or investigation, the convictions could not stand, and the court set out a model direction.
ਮੁੱਖ ਹਵਾਲੇ
"In the light of the judgment in Condron v United Kingdom it is not the quality of the decision but the genuineness of the decision that matters. If it is a plausible explanation that the reason for not mentioning facts is that the particular appellant acted on the advice of his solicitor and not because he had no or no satisfactory answer to give then no inference can be drawn."
— Kay LJ(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"That conclusion does not give a licence to a guilty person to shield behind the advice of his solicitor. The adequacy of the explanation advanced may well be relevant as to whether or not the advice was truly the reason for not mentioning the facts."
— Kay LJ(verbatim, verified against the judgment)
ਬਾਅਦ ਦਾ ਇਲਾਜ
In R v Hoare and Pierce [2004] EWCA Crim 784 and R v Beckles [2004] EWCA Crim 2766 the Court of Appeal explained that genuine reliance on legal advice is not of itself enough to prevent an inference: the jury may still draw one if the defendant's reliance on the advice was not reasonable or the advice was not the true explanation for his silence.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help