Mohammad, R. v

Mohammad, R. v

The Recorder was entitled in law to give the jury a direction under section 34 regarding adverse inference, as the appellant's pre-prepared statement did not automatically preclude such a direction and the omissions were material. The conviction was not unsafe, and the section 34 direction did not prejudice the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Faisal Khan Mohammad; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Adverse Inference, Right to Silence, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Self Defence Adverse Inference Right to Silence Jury Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faisal Khan Mohammad

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction was unsafe due to the Recorder's direction on adverse inference under section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's right to silence and use of a pre-prepared statement precluded an adverse inference direction
  3. 3 Whether the jury was properly directed on the contents of the pre-prepared statement

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder was entitled in law to give the jury a direction under section 34 regarding adverse inference, as the appellant's pre-prepared statement did not automatically preclude such a direction and the omissions were material. The conviction was not unsafe, and the section 34 direction did not prejudice the appellant.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • conviction upheld