Howell, Jeffrey

Jeffrey Howell was convicted in July 1998 of wounding with intent and received a sentence of six years’ imprisonment.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in April 1999.

Mr Howell had been accused of wounding a fellow resident at the lodging house where they both lived, his defence being that the victim had been the aggressor.

Having given a “no comment” interview at the police station, the jury at trial were told that they could draw adverse inferences from the fact that Mr Howell had not given the account of events which he relied on when he had the opportunity to do so.

The inference was that his account was a late invention.

During review, the CCRC learned that prior to his police station interview Mr Howell had in fact made a detailed written statement to his solicitors in very similar terms to his trial evidence.

Mr Howell had been advised at the police station by a solicitor’s clerk who had advised him to make no comment at the police interview, and he had followed this advice.

The solicitors had obtained a statement from Mr Howell pre-trial stating that he did not wish to call the solicitor’s clerk to give evidence about this advice.

The CCRC sought to obtain an account from Mr Howell’s solicitors and counsel as to why he had been advised not to put into evidence the fact that his account was not late invention and that he had given a detailed and consistent account before being interviewed by police.

Following review, the CCRC concluded that there had been a failure to advise Mr Howell competently at the police station and before trial, and that the jury had not been directed adequately on the issue of inferences from silence.

The CCRC referred the conviction in January 2001.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in November 2002.