Confessions and Admissions Flashcards
confession definition
A confession is a statement made by an accused in a criminal case to a person in authority which is adverse to his or her interest
what is an admission?
Statements made by a party in a civil case which are adverse to his or her interest are known as admissions
involuntary confession
There is a common law principle that if a confession was not a voluntary one, it is automatically inadmissible in a criminal trial.
The burden of proof is on the accused to show that the confession was involuntary.
A confession will be regarded as involuntary if
(a) It was made as a result of a threat, inducement or oppression
(b) Which came from a person in authority
reliability principle
Confessions should not be admitted if there are factors present which might cast doubts on their accuracy
why is there judicial intervention in the area of confessions
First of all, there is the principle that an accused should not be compelled to incriminate himself.
Secondly, there is the disciplinary principle, which emphasises the importance of proper police behaviour in a civilised society. This principle opposes the admission of any confessions obtained by police misconduct, irrespective of their accuracy. Connected with this is the principle of fairness, which states that society has a right to insist that those who enforce the law themselves respect it.
what are the two factors that must be present before a confession will be held to be involunatry
First, the confession must have been made as a result of a threat, inducement, or oppression.
Secondly, this threat, inducement or oppression must have come from somebody in authority
Oppression
in the People (DPP) v McNally the Court of Criminal Appeal accepted the concept of oppression as a factor vitiating a confession at common law, and this was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the People (DPP) v Lynch (22 hours of interrogation with various gardai, not allowed to see members of his family or sleep) Since then there have been many Irish decisions recognising oppression as an alternative ground for declaring a statement involuntary at common law.
what must be shown in order to render a confession involuntary? - DPP v Pringle
In order for a threat to render a confession involuntary, it must be shown that the threat caused the confession.
In The People (DPP) v Pringle, the appellant was informed that his girlfriend might be called as a witness or charged as an accessory to the offence of which he was suspected. He was further told that if he gave an account of his movements on the day of the murder, this problem would not arise.
However, rather than making an immediate confession, the appellant consulted his solicitor, who told him that there was no risk of Mrs. Curtin being charged as an accessory. The appellant showed every sign of being reassured by this.
Consequently it could not be said that his subsequent confession had been induced by the threat.
what is the difference between an inducement and a threat?
An inducement may be distinguished from a threat insofar as its effect is based on hope rather than fear
what are the facts of People (A-G) v Flynn?
In The People (A-G) v Flynn the appellant had remained silent throughout two hours of questioning. The Garda Sergeant brought him his lunch and had a chat with him. After lunch the accused made a confession.
I think it better if you tell the truth was an inducement;
what is the test for whether an inducement/threat exists?
It does not matter whether the inducement or the threat is true or false. Neither does it matter whether the person making the threat or inducement intended his statement to be taken as such.
As shown by The People (DPP) v Hoey, the test of whether a threat or inducement exists is an objective one
what behaviour will qualify as oppressive?
In the People (DPP) v Shaw, Griffin J defined behaviour which might sap the will and qualify as oppressive: physical or psychological pressure; promises or threats; drugs; hypnosis; alcohol; prolonged interrogation.
does it matter if the person engaging in the oppressive behavior intended it to be oppressive?
It is not relevant whether the person engaging in the oppressive behaviour intended it to be oppressive.
What has to be looked at is the effect their conduct had on the mind of the detainee.
With this in consideration it must be remembered that the effect of particular behaviour varies from person to person. What would sap the will of one person might not affect another. The court takes into account the particular circumstances and characteristics of the accused in deciding whether their will has been oppressed
who is a person in authority?
The term “person in authority” has been defined as someone who may reasonably be supposed to be in a position to influence the prosecution
In The People (DPP) v McCann it was held that the accused’s brothers were not persons in authority. A person in authority was “someone engaged in the arrest, detention, examination or prosecution of the accused or someone acting on behalf of the prosecution.
