Maia Cohen-Lask writes for The Barrister on adverse inferences

Senior Associate Maia Cohen-Lask has written for The Barrister on adverse inferences and the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Black, discussing when to speak, or not.

“Anyone who has ever watched a TV crime drama will know that, when you are arrested, you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. And so, through these words, the caution sets up the most significant decision a suspect must take when they are arrested, or when they attend an interview under caution voluntarily – do they provide the police with their version of events at the interview, or exercise their right to silence? Whilst determining what advice to give on this issue has always been a matter of judgment, the principles governing the exercise of that judgment have been thrown into confusion by the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in R v Black [1].”

To read the full article, click here.