§ 261 — Inferences from accused’s silence

261.—(1) Where in any criminal proceeding evidence is given that the accused on being charged with an offence, or informed by a police officer or any other person charged with the duty of investigating offences that the accused may be prosecuted for an offence, failed to mention any fact which the accused subsequently relies on in the accused’s defence, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed (as the case may be), the court may in determining —(a)

whether to commit the accused for trial;

(b)

whether there is a case to answer; and

(c)

whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper; and the failure may, on the basis of those inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material.

(2) Subsection (1) does not —(a)

prejudice the admissibility in criminal proceedings of evidence of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in the accused’s presence relating to the conduct for which the accused is charged, insofar as evidence of this would be admissible apart from that subsection; or

(b)

preclude the drawing of any inference from any such silence or other reaction of the accused which could be drawn apart from that subsection.

—(1) Where in any criminal proceeding evidence is given that the accused on being charged with an offence, or informed by a police officer or any other person charged with the duty of investigating offences that the accused may be prosecuted for an offence, failed to mention any fact which the accused subsequently relies on in the accused’s defence, being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned, charged or informed (as the case may be), the court may in determining —(a)

whether to commit the accused for trial;

(b)

whether there is a case to answer; and

(c)

whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged,

draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper; and the failure may, on the basis of those inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material.

(2) Subsection (1) does not —(a)

prejudice the admissibility in criminal proceedings of evidence of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in the accused’s presence relating to the conduct for which the accused is charged, insofar as evidence of this would be admissible apart from that subsection; or

(b)

preclude the drawing of any inference from any such silence or other reaction of the accused which could be drawn apart from that subsection.