Condron v United Kingdom
Where defendants remained silent in police interview on legal advice, the jury should have been directed that they could draw an adverse inference only if satisfied that the silence could sensibly be attributed only to having no answer.
Facts
Mr and Mrs Condron, who were heroin addicts, were arrested on suspicion of supplying heroin. Their solicitor advised them not to answer questions in interview, because he considered that they were suffering from withdrawal symptoms and were unfit to be interviewed. At trial, they gave evidence explaining their conduct, and the judge directed the jury that they could draw adverse inferences from their silence under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. They were convicted.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of article 6. The court said that the drawing of inferences from silence is not in itself incompatible with the right to a fair trial, but that particular caution is required. The jury should have been directed that, if they were satisfied that the applicants' silence could not sensibly be attributed to their having no answer, or none that would stand up to cross examination, they should not draw an adverse inference. The fact that the silence had been on legal advice was a factor of particular importance, and the direction had not given it sufficient weight.
Related cases on silence, confessions and improperly obtained evidence
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Fulling [1987] QB 426
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v Keenan [1990] 2 QB 54
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
