Controversial Issues During Pre-Trial Procedure
This case revolves around evidential issues that may have arisen during pre-trial procedures:
1. Was the rejection of Mike’s request for a solicitor, a breach of procedure, and the impact of any breach?
2. What effect does Mike’s silence, when questioned in the first interview, have on his defence?
3. Can any of Mike’s statements during the second interview, asking for a pardon or admitting his involvement in the offence and providing information on others, amount to a confession? If so, is this confession admissible at trial?
4. Can Bob’s refusal to answer questions at interview, on the basis of legal advice, cause an ‘adverse inference’ to be drawn?
5. Can Bob rely on evidence at the trial stating that he was not involved in the offence when he remained silent when interviewed? Does it matter that he did so, on the advice of his solicitor?
6. Is Jill’s witness statement admissible?
MIKE
In Northern Ireland the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 (PACE) Codes of Practice regulate police procedures. Code C1 relates to the procedures police must abide by when persons are in detention or being questioned under police …show more content…
Bob may argue he was silent on the grounds of legal advice however; silence “does not give a licence to a guilty person to shield behind the advice of his solicitor”73. In R v Hoare and Pierce74 the Court of Appeal held that when the accused remains silent on the advice of his solicitor then a jury should consider whether it was ‘reasonable’ for a defendant to rely on such advice. The test of ‘reasonableness’ does not depend on whether the advice was legally correct75 or whether it complied with the Law Society's guidelines76 but the standard ‘reasonableness’ test. Thus, if the jury decided it was ‘unreasonable’, Bob may not be able to hide behind the fact that he remained silent on the advice of his solicitor and an adverse inference could be drawn from his
1. Was the rejection of Mike’s request for a solicitor, a breach of procedure, and the impact of any breach?
2. What effect does Mike’s silence, when questioned in the first interview, have on his defence?
3. Can any of Mike’s statements during the second interview, asking for a pardon or admitting his involvement in the offence and providing information on others, amount to a confession? If so, is this confession admissible at trial?
4. Can Bob’s refusal to answer questions at interview, on the basis of legal advice, cause an ‘adverse inference’ to be drawn?
5. Can Bob rely on evidence at the trial stating that he was not involved in the offence when he remained silent when interviewed? Does it matter that he did so, on the advice of his solicitor?
6. Is Jill’s witness statement admissible?
MIKE
In Northern Ireland the Police and Criminal Evidence (NI) Order 1989 (PACE) Codes of Practice regulate police procedures. Code C1 relates to the procedures police must abide by when persons are in detention or being questioned under police …show more content…
Bob may argue he was silent on the grounds of legal advice however; silence “does not give a licence to a guilty person to shield behind the advice of his solicitor”73. In R v Hoare and Pierce74 the Court of Appeal held that when the accused remains silent on the advice of his solicitor then a jury should consider whether it was ‘reasonable’ for a defendant to rely on such advice. The test of ‘reasonableness’ does not depend on whether the advice was legally correct75 or whether it complied with the Law Society's guidelines76 but the standard ‘reasonableness’ test. Thus, if the jury decided it was ‘unreasonable’, Bob may not be able to hide behind the fact that he remained silent on the advice of his solicitor and an adverse inference could be drawn from his