Johnson & Anor, R. v

Johnson & Anor, R. v

The trial judge erred in permitting the jury to draw an adverse inference from Hind's refusal to attend police interview, as this was an exercise of the right to silence and did not fall within section 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 or the common law. The judge's directions on...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: James Gordon Johnson; Appellant: Jodie Thomas Hind; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
convictions quashed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Adverse Inference, Right to Silence, Identification Evidence, Jury Directions, Bad Character Evidence, Burglary, Theft, Taking Motor Vehicle Without Consent
Criminal Law Adverse Inference Right to Silence Identification Evidence Jury Directions Bad Character Evidence Burglary Theft +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Gordon Johnson

Appellant

Jodie Thomas Hind

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in permitting the jury to draw an adverse inference from Hind's refusal to attend police interview
  2. 2 Whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding an incident of jury intimidation were adequate
  3. 3 Whether the judge's directions on identification evidence were sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in permitting the jury to draw an adverse inference from Hind's refusal to attend police interview, as this was an exercise of the right to silence and did not fall within section 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 or the common law. The judge's directions on identification evidence were also deficient in certain respects. These errors, taken cumulatively, rendered the convictions unsafe and required that the convictions be quashed and a retrial ordered.

Court Disposition

convictions quashed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Appeals allowed; convictions for burglary and taking a motor vehicle without consent quashed for both appellants.
  • A retrial is ordered on the quashed counts; a fresh indictment to be preferred and arraignment within two months as per section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.