Confession Evidence Flashcards
What is the definition of a confession?
A confession is ‘any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise’
- Can admit only an element of the offence or something that is detrimental to their case and this would be a confession
- Saying you hit someone in self-defence is a partly adverse confession
What are the general rules around admissibility of confessions and mixed statements?
A confession will be admissible at trial to prove D’s guilt and is an exception to the hearsay rule
- A transcript of an interview read out where D confessed is hearsay but admissible
- An arresting officer repeating comments of a confession by D is admissible
Mixed statement – where D’s confession includes a statement which is favourable to them, the whole statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule
Where there are co-defendants and one makes a confession, what impact does this have?
- Pre-trial – confession by D1 which implicates D2 is admissible only against D1 (can only be used against themselves)
- At trial – confession by D1 will be admissible against D2
- Pleading guilty – if D1 pleads guilty, any evidence that give for the prosecution implicating D2 will be admissible against D2
Broadly, why might a defendant seek to challenge a confession?
D may challenge the admissibility of their confession by arguing either:
- They did make the confession, but it shouldn’t be admitted in evidence
- They didn’t make the confession + the person claiming it was made was mistaken as to what they heard or has fabricated evidence of it
A defendant can challenge confession evidence under s76 PACE 1984. What are the 2 grounds for challenge under this?
Usually used where D accepts they made a confession
D can argue that the confession was obtained:
- 1) By oppression
- 2) In a situation where something must be said or done which, in the circumstances that existed at the time, would render any confession by D unreliable
If one of the s76 PACE grounds for challenging admissibility of hearsay evidence are claimed, what is the impact of this?
If one of these applies, court must not allow the confession to be used as evidence, unless P proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained in one of those 2 situations – this applies even if the court thinks the confession is true
- If D claims their confession was obtained by oppression at trial, P must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by oppression, even if the judge thinks the confession is true
- If P fails to meet the burden, the jury won’t hear evidence of the confession
What is meant by ‘oppression’ for the purposes of s76 PACE?
Includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment and the use or threat of violence
Would be oppression if D was bullied by police into making a confession
When might the ground of unreliability be claimed under s76 PACE? Give example situations
1) To apply, something must be said or done which, in the circumstances that existed at the time, would render any confession by D unreliable
- Something occurs which may have caused D to make a confession for reasons other than they committed the offence and wanted to admit guilt
2) Examples of situations where a confession may be excluded on grounds of unreliability:
- D not offered sufficient refreshment or rest, so they admit guilt to leave the police station ASAP or obtain refreshment or rest
- D offered an inducement to confess (i.e. they will get a lesser sentence)
- Telling D that the prosecution case is much stronger than it is so there is no point denying guilt
- Questioning in an inappropriate way (repeating same question repeatedly)
- Questioning someone when they aren’t in a fit state due to drink, drugs or a medical condition
- Threatening D with something other than violence (that they will kept until they confess)
How does the denial of legal advice by the police relate to unreliability under s76 PACE?
To say the confession is unreliable because they were denied legal advice, there must be a causal link between the breach in denying advice and the unreliability of confession
- If D knows their rights well, despite no legal advice, they will be unlikely to exclude the confession for being unreliable due to denial of legal advice
Can a co-defendant rely on a confession by another defendant to strengthen their own case?
D1 can rely on D2’s admission of guilt where both plead not guilty and are tried jointly
However, if D2 says their confession was obtained by oppression or on grounds of unreliability, the court must exclude the confession, unless they are satisfied on balance of probabilities (by D1, who wants to rely on it) that it wasn’t obtained in that way
- This is relevant where D1 wants to use D2’s confession to show it was D2 who committed the crime and not both together and not D1 alone
A defendant can also challenge confession evidence under s78 PACE? How does this work?
Gives court a discretionary power to exclude prosecution evidence, including evidence of a confession, if the court feels that the admission of evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings that it ought not to be admitted
- Can be used where D admits making a confession, which they claim is untrue or where D denies making a confession
Where the defendant accepts that they made a confession, when will s78 PACE operate?
Where D accepts having confessed, but alleges the police have breached PACE and/or Codes of Practice in obtaining it, the court is only likely to exclude such evidence if these breaches are significant and substantial
- Most common for courts to exercise their discretion where D was denied legal advice by police
Where the defendant denies having made any confession, when will s78 PACE operate?
If D is alleged to have made a confession outside the police station, which they later deny, its admissibility can be challenged under s78, but not under grounds of unreliability
‘Outside’ confessions are likely to be excluded if police:
- Failed to accurately record D’s comments, as police couldn’t substantiate that the comments were made by D
- Failed to give D an opportunity to view a record of their comments and sign it as being accurate or to give them a chance to dispute the accuracy of the record
- Failed to put the confession to D at the start of their subsequent police station interview, as this gives D the chance to confirm or deny this ‘on the record.’
What are ‘significant statements?’
This describes something said by a suspect in the presence of a police officer outside a formal interview, but that is capable of being used in evidence against them, such as an admission of guilt
Might occur:
- Just before or at time of arrest
- On the way to police station or at police station before or after an interview
These statements are confessions and Code C of PACE requires these significant statements to be put to D at the beginning of a formal interview, after caution, so they can confirm, deny or add more details
What is the procedure for challenging admissibility of confession evidence in the Crown Court?
Admissibility of disputed confession evidence is determined by trial judge at a voir dire (trial within a trial), without the jury
- Confession in PS interview - The interviewing officer may give evidence as to how it was obtained, as will D + audio recording of interview will be played
- Confession outside PS interview – the officer who heard the confession and D will give evidence
Prosecution and defence will make submissions, and judge decides to admit or not
If inadmissible – jury never hears anything about a confession
If admissible – officer will give evidence of confession to jury + D can attack the credibility of the confession through cross-examination
What is the procedure for challenging the admissibility of confession evidence in the Magistrates’ Court?
Ruling on admissibility sought when interviewing officer gives evidence
If D seeks to exclude under s76 as well (oppression and unreliability), MC must hold a voir dire as well, where they hear arguments on both s76 and s78
No voir dire for s78 only; here, a challenge occurs at end of prosecution case (no case to answer) or at end of trial in D’s solicitor’s closing speech
If the defendant’s confession is deemed inadmissible, but other evidence was acquired as a result of the confession, what is the admissibility status of this other evidence?
If D’s confession is inadmissible, but leads to the finding of other evidence (murder weapon with D’s fingerprints for instance), this other evidence remains admissible
- Prosecution could not say murder weapon was found following a confession though
