R v Kyi-Riece Sylvester
[2023] EWCA Crim 1546
R v Steven McInerney
6 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 165
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murder. His lawyer tried to explain why he didn't testify, but the judge stopped him because there was no evidence to support his claims. The court agreed with the judge and said the conviction was fair because there was enough evidence against the man anyway.
Key Facts
- •Steven McInerney convicted of murder of Michael Toohey.
- •Conviction followed a trial with three Williams brothers and a 15-year-old youth (X).
- •Murder occurred during a group attack at the rear of an internet cafe.
- •Cause of death: blunt force trauma.
- •Prosecution alleged premeditated attack as part of a drug turf war.
- •McInerney's defense was denial; he did not give evidence.
- •Judge directed the jury on the implications of McInerney's silence.
- •Defense counsel argued against the adverse inference drawn from McInerney's silence, suggesting alternative reasons.
- •Judge restricted defense counsel from speculating on reasons for silence without supporting evidence.
Legal Principles
Adverse inferences can be drawn from a defendant's silence, but only if the prosecution case is strong enough to warrant an answer and the silence is attributable to a lack of credible defense.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a defendant to argue against an adverse inference direction before it's given, citing good reasons.
R v Dixon (Jordan) [2013] EWCA Crim 465
Defense counsel cannot invite jury speculation about reasons for a defendant's silence when there's no supporting evidence.
This case
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 45: protects the identity of a youth under 18 involved in legal proceedings.
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Outcomes
Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed.
The judge's restriction on defense counsel's arguments regarding McInerney's silence was deemed appropriate; sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Three-day extension of time to appeal granted.
Due to the applicant's move to a new prison.