Hackett v R.

Hackett v R.

The judge erred in giving both a section 34 direction and a Lucas lies direction, and in failing to properly tailor the directions to the facts of the case. However, the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, and the errors did not render the conviction unsafe. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: David James Hackett; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adverse Inferences, Lies Direction, Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Jury Directions, Attempted Arson, Evidence Assessment
Criminal Law Adverse Inferences Lies Direction Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Jury Directions Attempted Arson Evidence Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David James Hackett

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in giving both a section 34 direction and a Lucas lies direction to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the directions given were confusing or unduly favourable to the defence
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the law regarding adverse inferences from silence and lies

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in giving both a section 34 direction and a Lucas lies direction, and in failing to properly tailor the directions to the facts of the case. However, the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming, and the errors did not render the conviction unsafe. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed