Wainwright, R. v

Wainwright, R. v

The judge was entitled to give both a section 34 and a Lucas direction because the explanations for the applicant's lies and his silence in interview were different. The directions as given were appropriate, covered all necessary protections, and did not cause unfairness. The conviction is safe.

Parties
Appellant: Robert Wainwright; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Murder, Joint Enterprise, Adverse Inferences, Lies Direction, Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Lucas Direction
Criminal Law Murder Joint Enterprise Adverse Inferences Lies Direction Section 34 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Lucas Direction

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

Parties

Robert Wainwright

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in giving both a section 34 direction and a Lucas direction to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the directions as given were inadequate or unfair, rendering the conviction unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to give both a section 34 and a Lucas direction because the explanations for the applicant's lies and his silence in interview were different. The directions as given were appropriate, covered all necessary protections, and did not cause unfairness. The conviction is safe.

Court Disposition

application dismissed