PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 46834/06) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a British national, Mr David Adetoro (“the applicant”), on 30 October 2006.

The applicant was represented by Stephensons Solicitors, a firm of solicitors practising in Wigan. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Gladstone, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The applicant alleged that he did not have a fair trial as a result of the trial judge's misdirection to the jury on the drawing of adverse inferences as regards his refusal to answer questions during police interviews.

On 25 May 2009 the Acting President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

A. Background facts

The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently detained in HMP Whitemoor, Cambridgeshire.

Between June 1995 and March 1997 eight robberies and six aborted robberies took place in the Manchester area. The robbers targeted security vehicles carrying cash; banks; one post office; and one supermarket. More than once, firearms were discharged. Police officers chasing the robbers were fired upon and on one occasion a lorry driver who used his vehicle to ram the robbers' getaway car was shot and seriously injured.

The prosecution case was that the applicant joined the conspiracy in around April 1996 after his release from prison, after four of the robberies had been committed. The evidence against the applicant was almost entirely circumstantial and the case relied heavily on evidence from a police surveillance exercise carried out over a period of about one year. The prosecution argued that the applicant's recorded movements were consistent with his playing an active part in the conspiracy.

The applicant was arrested on 21 March 1997. He denied any involvement in the conspiracy to rob and was interviewed under caution in March and June 1997. The terms of the caution were that he did not have to say anything but that it might harm his defence if he did not mention when questioned something on which he later sought to rely in court. During the interviews, he was asked to give an explanation for his movements as recorded by the police in their surveillance exercise, his association with a variety of individuals and his whereabouts at the time of the robberies. On each occasion, he replied “no comment”.

B. Domestic proceedings

The applicant subsequently pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to rob and other offences arising out of the conspiracy.

1. Proceedings before the Crown Court

At trial before the Crown Court, the applicant gave evidence in his own defence. His case was that he was not involved in the conspiracy. He claimed that he was not even aware of the robbery conspiracy or his associates' involvement. However, he admitted being involved in the buying and selling of stolen cars and argued that the police observations showed his involvement in that business, rather than in any conspiracy to rob.

The applicant also provided answers to all the questions which he had declined to answer during the police interviews in March and June 1997. In particular, he accounted for his association with various individuals, provided explanations for why he had moved certain vehicles on certain dates, gave detailed accounts of his movements on relevant dates, provided reasons why he was observed wearing gloves on specific occasions and gave explanations for conversations recorded by covert surveillance.

The applicant was asked why he had not provided these explanations at the time of the police interviews. He responded that he had not wanted to incriminate people in relation to the stolen vehicles.

In his summing up to the jury, the judge directed them as to the burden of proof and the standard of proof in the case: “...The burden [of proof] lies upon the prosecution throughout the case, to prove their case against the defendant. The defendant does not have to prove anything at all, there is no burden upon him to prove anything. ... The next matter of law, is the standard of proof, this is a very simple concept, the standard is, that you must be sure. You must not convict this man unless you are sure he is guilty and nothing less than being sure will do.”

He subsequently gave them the following direction regarding lies: “Another matter of law, ... which I should mention, concerns the telling of lies or being untruthful. You may come to the conclusion that this defendant has told you a lie or a number of lies; I'm not suggesting that he has or he hasn't, it is simply a matter that you may wish to consider. Because, I have to tell you as a matter of law, that the fact that a defendant tells a lie, is not of itself, evidence of guilt. A defendant may lie for many reasons. He may lie because he doesn't want to disclose something or out of confusion, panic or something of that sort. If you think that the defendant has lied in evidence, but you think that there is or might be some innocent explanation for any lie, then ignore it, take no notice of it at all. If, on the other hand, you were to find that the defendant did lie and you are sure that he didn't lie for any innocent reason, then any such lie can be evidence going to support the prosecution's case.”

The judge went on to deal with the questioning of the applicant by the police. In this regard, he noted: “... there [were] some six hours – if I've added it up correctly – of interviews between the police and the defendant, from the day of his arrest in March through to June of last year and at each of those various interviews, he was cautioned. The words of the caution being, that he was told that he did not have to say anything, but that it may harm his defence if he didn't mention when questioned, something which he may later rely on in court. He was told that anything which he might say may be given in evidence.”

The judge noted that the applicant had not answered questions put to him during the police interviews, replying “no comment” to each of the questions posed. He reminded the jury that the applicant did not suggest that he was advised by his lawyer not to comment but said that he had not answered questions because he did not want to incriminate people in relation to stolen vehicles. The judge also reminded the jury of some of the specific questions asked of the applicant during the police interviews and of the subsequent answers relied upon by the applicant during his evidence at trial and added: “[The applicant] knew, as he accepted when he gave evidence before you, that he had been arrested for armed robbery. He admits that he failed to mention any of the facts to which I have just referred, when he was interviewed and he says his reason for that, was that although well knowing that others had been arrested for the much more serious offence of armed robbery, as he had been, he didn't want to incriminate them in the stealing of cars.”

The judge concluded with the following direction: “You must decide, whether in the circumstances, these facts to which I have referred, were facts which the defendant could reasonably have been expected to have mentioned in the light of that caution, which was repeatedly given to him, over that period from March to June. If you find that he could reasonably be expected to have mentioned those facts, then the law is, that you may draw such inferences as appear proper, from his failures to mention such matters when interviewed. I reminded you of the period of the interviews. Failures to mention such matters cannot on their own prove guilt, but you may hold such failures against the defendant when deciding whether he is guilty, that is to say, you may take them into account as some additional support for the prosecution's case. You are not bound to do so, it's a matter entirely for you to decide whether it is fair to do so.”

On 18 June 1998 the jury found the applicant guilty of the offences charged. He was sentenced to 26 years' imprisonment. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (see paragraph 21 below) summarised the comments of the trial judge on sentencing as follows: “111. In sentencing Mr Adetoro, the judge noted that he had six previous convictions dating from 1998, including a conviction for conspiracy to rob ...The trial judge described him as a dangerous, cunning and intelligent man and he was satisfied that after he had joined the conspiracy, he had played a commanding role ...

Mr Adetoro did not take part in the first four robberies because he was in prison in respect of a previous matter connected with armed robbery. He was released in September and by October was associating with his co-accused ... Thereafter he joined the conspiracy. Once he had joined the tactics and execution of the various robberies increased in gravity. The judge noted that he was satisfied that Mr Adetoro was involved in the sixth robbery and ignored his assertion that he was with Mr Shearer and Mr Stephenson at the material time. He was a 'rather clever and determined liar' and his alibi 'fell apart'. The judge was not prepared to place reliance on anything he said and made no finding in respect of Mr Shearer and Mr Stephenson's presence or absence in the circumstances of the sixth robbery.”

2. First appeal to the Court of Appeal

The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing, inter alia, that the summing up contained a Lucas direction (a direction to the jury in relation to lies – see paragraph 33 below) where it was wholly inappropriate; and that the trial judge had not given any direction to the jury regarding the drawing of adverse inferences from the applicant's silence during the police interviews in circumstances where such a direction was appropriate.

On 21 June 1999, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment. It agreed that there had been no need for a Lucas direction. However, it considered that the fact that one was given did not prejudice the applicant's defence or the safety of his conviction. Regarding the adverse inferences direction, the court concluded, having regard to the transcript of the trial judge's summing up, that the judge had given such a direction to the jury. It considered the applicant's case in the round and noted that the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming. The applicant's appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, his sentence was reduced to 22 years' imprisonment.

3. Second appeal to the Court of Appeal

On 20 July 2005, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) referred the applicant's conviction to the Court of Appeal on the basis of the trial judge's direction to the jury in relation to the applicant's silence at the police interviews. The main ground of appeal was that the direction on adverse inferences was defective in that the jury were not directed that an adverse inference could only be drawn where it was satisfied that the real reason for the applicant's silence was that he had no answer to the questions asked, or no answer that would hold up to scrutiny. The CCRC report noted that legal advice dated 9 July 1998 on the merits of an appeal made reference to the omission in the jury direction but that this issue was not pursued beyond the initial advice and was not incorporated into the applicant's grounds of appeal at that time. The Court of Appeal subsequently observed that this ground: “was not one of the ten grounds of appeal advanced by experienced counsel who appeared for the appellant at trial.”

On the morning of the appeal hearing, counsel for the prosecution informed counsel for the applicant that he considered there to be no justification for opposing the appeal and that the only issue would be whether or not there ought to be a retrial.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that, despite the misdirection by the trial judge, the conviction was safe. It distinguished between cases where an accused exercised his right to silence pursuant to legal advice or because he was tired or ill and those where, as in the present case, the reason for not answering questions was linked to the accused's defence itself. It found that the jury had rejected the applicant's defence and, in doing so, must also have rejected the applicant's explanation of why he failed to answer questions in the police interview, noting: “Here the appellant's explanation was inextricably linked to his defence which was: 'I was involved with the others in buying and selling stolen cars, but not in armed robbery'. In saying that he did not answer questions because he did not wish to implicate others in this business, the appellant was necessarily advancing his own defence. The jury rejected this defence and it seems to us that in doing so they must also have rejected the appellant's explanation for his failure to mention facts at interview.”

The court also noted that the judge had given the jury an unnecessary Lucas direction which, in the event, provided assistance to the jury in how to approach the question of adverse inferences which could be drawn from the applicant's failure to provide an explanation of his conduct during the police interviews. It concluded that: “The direction the judge gave could only have related to lies told by the appellant in court. The jury were told that if they thought there was an innocent explanation for any such lie told by the appellant they should not hold it against him. So, as the jury must have concluded that the appellant's explanation for his silence ('I wanted to protect others') was a lie, following the judge's direction they would have had to consider whether there was an innocent explanation for it before they could have used it as supportive of the Crown's case. If therefore they did use his lying explanation against him, the jury must have concluded that the lie was not innocent – in other words the reason he was lying about why he had not answered the questions was because he had no answer to them or none which would withstand scrutiny. ... So on analysis if the jury in this case did draw adverse inferences against the appellant from his silence at interview, they could only have done so by following the same thought processes as they would have had to follow if the proper section 34 direction had been given. This is therefore not a case in which one cannot say what the jury would have done if such a direction had been given. Put shortly, if they did draw adverse inferences against the appellant following the directions which they were given, they could only have done so if they considered that the reason for his silence was that he had no or no sustainable answer to the questions he was asked.”

The court referred to the earlier judgment of the Court of Appeal, which found the evidence against the applicant to be overwhelming, and concluded: “This was not therefore a case in which one could say that the correct direction would have tipped the balance”.

The applicant's appeal against conviction was dismissed on 7 June 2006.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e1
001-98385_a8_em1
CODE
DIRECT
46834/06
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e2
001-98385_a8_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e3
001-98385_a8_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
British
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e4
001-98385_a8_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr David Adetoro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e5
001-98385_a8_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
30 October 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e6
001-98385_a8_em6
ORG
QUASI
Stephensons Solicitors
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e7
001-98385_a8_em7
LOC
QUASI
Wigan
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e8
001-98385_a8_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
United Kingdom Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e9
001-98385_a8_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Ms J. Gladstone
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e10
001-98385_a8_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e11
001-98385_a8_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
25 May 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e12
001-98385_a8_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1972
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-98385_a8_e13
001-98385_a8_em13
ORG
QUASI
HMP Whitemoor, Cambridgeshire
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e14
001-98385_a8_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
June 1995
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e15
001-98385_a8_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
March 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e16
001-98385_a8_em16
LOC
QUASI
Manchester
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e17
001-98385_a8_em17
DATETIME
QUASI
April 1996
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e18
001-98385_a8_em18
DATETIME
NO_MASK
one year
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e19
001-98385_a8_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
21 March 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e20
001-98385_a8_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
March and June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e21
001-98385_a8_em21
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e21
001-98385_a8_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Crown Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e20
001-98385_a8_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
March and June 1997
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e22
001-98385_a8_em24
DATETIME
NO_MASK
six hours
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e23
001-98385_a8_em25
DATETIME
NO_MASK
March
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e24
001-98385_a8_em26
DATETIME
NO_MASK
June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e25
001-98385_a8_em27
DATETIME
NO_MASK
March to June
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e26
001-98385_a8_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
18 June 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e27
001-98385_a8_em29
DATETIME
QUASI
26 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e28
001-98385_a8_em30
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Cases Review Commission
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e4
001-98385_a8_em31
PERSON
DIRECT
001-98385_a8_em4
Mr Adetoro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e29
001-98385_a8_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e4
001-98385_a8_em33
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Adetoro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e30
001-98385_a8_em34
DATETIME
NO_MASK
September
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e31
001-98385_a8_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
October
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e4
001-98385_a8_em36
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Adetoro
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e32
001-98385_a8_em37
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Shearer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e33
001-98385_a8_em38
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Stephenson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e32
001-98385_a8_em39
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Shearer
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e33
001-98385_a8_em40
PERSON
QUASI
Mr Stephenson
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e34
001-98385_a8_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
21 June 1999
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-98385_a8_e35
001-98385_a8_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
22 years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e36
001-98385_a8_em43
DATETIME
QUASI
20 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e28
001-98385_a8_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Criminal Cases Review Commission
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-98385_a8_e28
001-98385_a8_em45
ORG
NO_MASK
001-98385_a8_em44
CCRC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e28
001-98385_a8_em46
ORG
NO_MASK
CCRC
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e37
001-98385_a8_em47
DATETIME
QUASI
9 July 1998
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-98385_a8_e38
001-98385_a8_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
7 June 2006
David Adetoro
GBR
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: David Adetoro