[2006] EWCA Crim 1716

Failure by a trial judge to give a direction under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.34 was not always fatal to the safety of a conviction, as a case had to be considered on its own merits. Where an appellant's explanation for his silence at a police interview had advanced a defence later rejected by the jury, the jury must also have rejected the explanation, and considering that the fortuitous inclusion of a Lucas direction in the summing up would have entailed the same thought processes by the jury as required in response to a s.34 direction, in the circumstances the conviction was safe.

CA (Crim Div) (Tuckey LJ, Leveson J, Davis J)

07/06/2006