R v Argent
Lord Bingham set out six conditions which must be satisfied before a jury may draw an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to mention a fact when questioned under caution.
Facts
Mr Argent was charged with manslaughter, after a man was stabbed outside a nightclub. When interviewed by the police, on legal advice, he declined to answer questions. At his trial, he relied on facts which he had not mentioned in interview, and the judge directed the jury that they could draw adverse inferences from his failure to mention them, under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. He was convicted.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Lord Bingham CJ said that six formal conditions must be met before the jury can draw an inference: there must be proceedings against the defendant for an offence; the failure to answer must have occurred before he was charged; it must have occurred during questioning under caution; the questioning must have been directed to trying to discover whether or by whom the offence had been committed; the failure must have been a failure to mention a fact relied on in his defence; and the fact must be one which, in the circumstances existing at the time, he could reasonably have been expected to mention. The question of what was reasonable was for the jury, considering the particular defendant's characteristics.
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
- Condron v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- 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.
