R v Jafary [2016] NSWDC 41

R v Jafary [2016] NSWDC 41

Section 89A was not engaged because the accused declined to be interviewed and there was no relevant official questioning about the offence, beyond the special caution and questions about whether he would be questioned and whether he understood the caution, that could reasonably have elicited a fact within his knowledge to be relied on in his defence. Even if that interpretation were wrong, no unfavourable inference could properly be drawn from the accused's refusal to be interviewed after being told he did not have to participate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling in Absence of Jury on Whether Evidence or Directions Concerning a Special Caution and Silence Under S 89 a Evidence Act 1995 Were Necessary or Appropriate
Outcome
No direction on inferences from silence was necessary or appropriate.
Legal Topics
['special Caution' 'right to Silence' 'unfavourable Inferences' 'official Questioning' 's 89 a Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['special Caution' 'right to Silence' 'unfavourable Inferences' 'official Questioning' 's 89 a Evidence Act 1995']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling in Absence of Jury on Whether Evidence or Directions Concerning a Special Caution and Silence Under S 89 a Evidence Act 1995 Were Necessary or Appropriate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's refusal to participate in an electronically recorded interview after receiving a special caution engaged s 89A Evidence Act 1995." "Whether any unfavourable inference could properly be drawn from the accused's silence or refusal to be interviewed." 'Whether a direction on inferences from silence was necessary or appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 89A was not engaged because the accused declined to be interviewed and there was no relevant official questioning about the offence, beyond the special caution and questions about whether he would be questioned and whether he understood the caution, that could reasonably have elicited a fact within his knowledge to be relied on in his defence. Even if that interpretation were wrong, no unfavourable inference could properly be drawn from the accused's refusal to be interviewed after being told he did not have to participate.

Court Disposition

No direction on inferences from silence was necessary or appropriate.

Orders

  • ['No direction on inferences from "silence" necessary or appropriate.']