Legal Advice and Pre-Trial Silence—Unreasonable Developments

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.