R v Anthony Reid
[2024] EWCA Crim 308
R v Scott Marsden
16 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1610
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of assault. The judge made a mistake when instructing the jury about his police interview, leading to the conviction being overturned. There won't be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •Incident stemmed from a burglary; appellant confronted the 16-year-old suspect.
- •Appellant gave a prepared statement to police, admitting to striking the victim but denying causing injury.
- •Co-accused, Carter, gave conflicting accounts and made admissions of violence.
- •Judge gave a Section 34 direction (Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994) regarding both defendants' failure to mention certain facts in their interviews.
- •Appellant's appeal challenged the propriety of the Section 34 direction in his case.
Legal Principles
Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for adverse inferences to be drawn from a defendant's failure to mention facts when questioned, if reasonably expected to mention them.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, s.34
A Section 34 direction must identify precise matters omitted, circumstances indicating reasonable expectation to mention them, inferences that might be drawn, and any explanation offered by the defendant.
R v Pektar [2004] 1 Cr App R 22 (as cited in Crown Court Compendium)
The applicability of Section 34 to a co-accused when the prosecution doesn't rely on it is a complex legal question, requiring careful consideration of the specific circumstances.
This case (Rex v Marsden)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The judge erred in giving a Section 34 direction without identifying the specific facts the appellant failed to mention and why he could reasonably have been expected to do so. The misdirection unfairly disadvantaged the appellant, potentially influencing the jury's verdict.
No retrial ordered.
The court deemed a retrial unnecessary given the specific circumstances and the strength of the prosecution's case.