Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Point of law arising from the caution given to suspects regarding adverse inferences does not merit Supreme Court appeal
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Criminal Appeal refuses application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court on point involving whether the caution given to a person in custody being questioned - that inferences may be drawn from his or failure to answer questions with respect to the offence for which he has been arrested - is sufficient to render those interviews admissible at a trial in respect of an offence other than that for which he was arrested, finding that the points in question cannot be said to be sufficiently grave or important that it is necessary in the public interest that they be referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Criminal law – application certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court – section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1924 – adverse inferences – whether the caution given to a person in custody being questioned pursuant to the inference provisions (ss.18, 19 and s.19A of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 as amended by ss. 28, 29 and 30 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2007) is sufficient to render those interviews admissible at a trial in respect of an offence other than that for which he was arrested – applicant arrested for firearms offence but questioned with respect to murder – questions do not meet criteria of exceptionality or public interest – application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
