ABSTRACT
Mr William Condron and Mrs Karen Condron were heroin addicts. They were arrested on 28 April 1995 and charged with supplying heroin. A police doctor considered that although they showed signs of withdrawal symptoms, they were fit to be interviewed. Their lawyer took a different view. They were interviewed and cautioned that it might harm their defence if they did not mention when questioned something which they later relied on in court. They said that they understood the warning, but when asked to explain their actions regarding the alleged supply of drugs they simply responded ‘no comment’. At trial, the police interviews were allowed in evidence. Both applicants gave evidence and said that the heroin found in the flat had been for their own personal use and had been purchased in bulk by the first applicant the evening before their arrest and that the packet they were seen handing to their neighbour had not been drugs. They said they had made no comment to police questions during interview on their solicitor’s advice that they were not in a condition to do so, given their withdrawal from heroin. The judge directed the jury that it could draw inferences from the applicants’ silence at interview. Both applicants were convicted and sentenced to four years’ and three years’ respectively. Their appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 17 October 1996. They complained that were denied a fair hearing on account of the fact that the trial judge left the jury with the option of drawing an adverse inference from their silence during police interview. Court found unanimously V 6(1), no separate issue under 6(2), not necessary to examine 6(3)(b) and (c).
