Abstract
This article examines recent case law concerning the drawing of adverse inferences, pursuant to s. 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, from a suspect's failure to mention during pre-trial interview facts that he subsequently relies on in court. The cases reveal that even a defendant who genuinely accepts and follows legal advice to remain silent cannot be confident that adverse inferences are precluded. It is argued that more careful thought needs to be given to what constitutes a genuine reliance on legal advice. Suspects who do genuinely rely on bona fide legal advice should not have adverse inferences drawn against them.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
