Confessions

Question 1

Confessions intro - exception to hearsay rule

Answer 1

Admissible because—- viewed as inculpatory statements

(statements made against self- interest)— considered more likely to be true

Question 2

When is it admissible. ??

Answer 2

Where;

—-Threats
—-inducements
—Oppression

Question 3

Types

Answer 3

Voluntary or involuntary

Question 4

Involuntary if:

Answer 4

Confession obtained

1) result of threat— from person in authority
2) result of —inducement from person in authority
3) result of oppression

Meaning of inducement —-is a promise to do something positive for accused if they confess

Question 5

Ibrahim v R Uk case

Answer 5

No statement by accused— admissible in evidence against him —-unless shown by prosecution —to have been voluntary

Question 6

State v Treanor

Answer 6

—1st decision —to recognise — confession made under influence of a promise/threat by person in authority

INADMISSIBLE——unless shown that confession not caused by promise or threat

Question 7

Threat - cases

Answer 7

Threat- someone of authority vitiated confession

—statement- something negative will happen to accused or persons close to him if he does not confess

Dpp v Hoey

—-firearms found in house
—soon brought in for questioning
—-questioning implied1– that accused’s family —would be interrogated if they did not confess

Question 8

Dpp v Pringle

Answer 8

—stated- accused’s gf—might be charged —as an accomplice if he did not confess

Question 9

Has to be shown that threat from person in authority caused confession

Answer 9

Dpp v Pringle

—threat— made by person in authority
—his confession—allowed—not caused by threat
—pringle—consulted with solicitor —before making confession
—he had been told—there was no basis —for prosecuting his gf as an accomplice and accepted this

Question 10

Oppression

Answer 10

This ground —allows a confession—to be set aside —if obtained due to behaviour of person in authority operating to OVERBEAR the will of the accused

When deciding on presence of oppression

Court must consider—

—entire treatment of accused in Custody
—in addition to—personal characteristics of the accused

Question 11

Oppression cases

Answer 11

In Dpp v Pringle

—there was behaviour —which might have been oppressive to some people being questioned

—but was insufficient to overbear—thé will of Pringle —die to his personal characteristics

Dpp v lynch

Lynch — spent almost 22hrs—in custody
—under constant surveillance—without being able to sleep or communicate with family and friends