Right To Silence

Front 1

Right to remain silent:

Back 1

R v Wedder / R v Argent / R v Betts and Halls / R v Beckles / R v Gill - warning

Front 2

R v Wedder

Back 2

D can rely on facts unmentioned during the interviews in the trial - either he admits it himself or through cross-examination reveals that fact.

As long as the jury believes that it was a fact that was reasonable expected to have been mentioned - failure draws adverse inference

Front 3

R v Argent:

Back 3

D has the right to remain silence - D could have remained silent based on his personal characteristics i.e. fear. Solicitor advising him to keep silent also amounts to one of his characteristics.

Front 4

R v Betts and Halls

Back 4

A genuine belief and reliance on the solicitor’s advise to remain silent is sufficient excuse for him not to have mentioned the fact.

Front 5

R v Beckles

Back 5

Genuine reliance is not enough. It must have been reasonable to rely on solicitor’s advice.

Front 6

R v Gill - Warning

Back 6

The Court must know the fact that D failed to mention and is now mentioning. Characteristics of the defendant must be considered. Jury is in entitled to draw adverse inference if they find that it was reasonable for the fact to be mentioned - but not obliged to.

Jury must be reminded of D’s right to silence - Jury may only draw adverse inference if they find D has fabricated the fact.