Bare delay in presenting to a police station, divorced from other potentially incriminating conduct such as flight, destruction of evidence, or interference with witnesses, is not capable of rationally supporting an inference of consciousness of guilt and should not attract a consciousness of guilt direction. Before post-offence conduct can be left to a jury as consciousness of guilt, the Crown must identify the conduct with precision and demonstrate its capacity to constitute an implied admission of the offence charged. The question whether a consciousness of guilt direction based on delay in attending police infringes the right to silence was expressly left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 10 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.