Silence at the point of arrest may be the subject of cross-examination and comment where it is inconsistent with the accused's version of events (such as being on a genuine mission to secure help), as distinct from the impermissible use of silence to suggest a defence raised at trial is a recent invention. A propensity warning is not required where counts are tried together, no application for separate trial was made, some evidence is admissible on both counts, and the summing up specifically identifies the evidence admissible on each count. A direction regarding the finding of a particular item of evidence as an indispensable intermediate fact is not required where the item is one of several cumulative circumstances and such a direction would be circular.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.