A sidebar to the Bail statement
At least we are getting meaningful law reform in this area in the UK - though it does not go far enough
A suspect, to whom all facts are known, can legitimately be expected to give a complete explanation soon after the event in specific circumstances
After all OP has top counsel advising him, and need only tell the truth.
The fact that key "facts" were withheld and changed says a lot IMO
The six necessary conditions prior to an adverse inference being drawn
The purpose of section 34 is:
(a) to discourage an accused from fabricating a defence late in the day; and
(b) to encourage the accused to make speedy disclosure of any genuine defence or any fact which may go toward establishing a genuine defence. (See R v Roble [1997] Crim LR 449).
In R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr.App.R. 27, Lord Bingham set out the six formal conditions that must be satisfied before an adverse inference can be drawn:
There must be proceedings against a person for an offence;
The alleged failure to mention a fact at trial must have occurred before charge, or on charge;
The alleged failure must have occurred during questioning under caution. (Refer to Archbold 15-484 to 15-486 on the question of when a suspect should be cautioned.);
The questioning must have been directed to trying to discover whether or by whom the alleged offence was committed;
The alleged failure of the accused must have been to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings;
The alleged failure must have been to mention a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned.
"In the circumstances" has been construed to include, when relevant, time of day, defendant's age, experience, mental capacity, state of health, sobriety, tiredness, knowledge, personality and legal advise might all be relevant. R v Howell [2003] Crim.L.R. 405.
It's interesting when you read the bail statement again, how many critical facts are incorrect or missing.
Personally I think it is crazy that OP can rely on these "facts" later, without making an accurate statement on the first day
Indeed it is precisely this approach that enabled him to manufacture his bail statement which is missing all the key information like whether reeva was awake, timings etc.
Indeed in this version he "screams" at Reeva to call the police - later changed to whispers, later changed to tells her in a low voice.
It is hard to take this nonsense seriously.
But needless to say, there is nothing in there about
1. Staying in the room, instead of going on the balcony
2. Reeva being awake
3. moving two fans
4. The blue light
5. The noise of the toilet door closing
6. Protracted screaming while approaching the toilet
7. The extended search for Reeva
8. Screaming after he shot Reeva
9. The approx time before he broke in to the toilet
10. How many cricket bat hits he used
11. Turning off the alarm
Indeed if you read it - there is little real information at all.
)
