Murray v United Kingdom
Drawing adverse inferences from a suspect's silence is not in itself a breach of the right to a fair trial, but denying access to a lawyer at the start of police questioning was.
Facts
John Murray was arrested in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and was denied access to a solicitor for 48 hours. During questioning, he remained silent. At his trial before a judge sitting alone, he was convicted of aiding and abetting the false imprisonment of an informer, and the judge drew adverse inferences from his silence under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He argued that drawing inferences from his silence and denying him access to a lawyer breached his right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that drawing adverse inferences from silence did not in itself breach article 6, because the right to silence is not absolute, and the inferences were drawn by an experienced judge in a case where there was strong evidence against Mr Murray that called for an explanation. However, denying him access to a lawyer during the first 48 hours of police questioning breached article 6, because the scheme for drawing inferences meant that the early stages of questioning were of crucial importance to his defence. The decision led to safeguards in England and Wales, including that inferences cannot be drawn from silence where a suspect has not been allowed to consult a solicitor.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
Studying english legal system? 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.
