exam Flashcards
Lord Runciman, gave 4 reasons for false confessions
‘a morbid desire for publicity or notoriety
‘a desire to protect someone else.’
People can see a prospect of immediate advantage from confessing, (i.e. an end of the questioning and/or release from the police station),even though the long-term consequences are far worse
The suspect may be ‘persuaded’ temporarily by the interrogators that he has really done the act in question
Definition of a Confession
s.82 (1) PACE ‘84 provides a partial definition of a confession thus;
‘…‘confessions’ includes any statement wholly or partially adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise.’
Safeguards regarding confessions
Confessions have to be tape-recorded now, Code E, Code of Practice
Code C, Code of Practice, which governs the detention and questioning of suspects.
Admissibility at common law
the admissibility of a confession was governed by the voluntariness test, i.e. had the confession been made voluntarily.
Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599
Callis v Gunn [1964] 1 QB 495 CCA
DPP v Ping Lin [1976] AC 574
Admissibility of confessions-post PACE ‘84
s.76 (1) PACE;
‘In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.’
Law of confession
s. 76 (2) PACE ‘84
a. by oppression of the person who made it; or
b. in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof,
the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid.’
the court is given power to raise the issue and require the prosecution to prove the conditions of admissibility
s.76 (3) PACE ‘84
R v Priestly (1965)
‘sapped the accused’s free will’ so that ‘he spoke when otherwise he would have remained silent.’
‘intentional infliction…of severe physical or mental pain and suffering by a public official, or by a person acting in an official capacity in the performance…of his official duties.’
s.134 Criminal Justice Act 1988
oppression
There must be a causal connection between the oppression and the making of the confession.
There must also be some degree of impropriety by the interrogator for oppression ground to be satisfied.
PACE ‘84 gives a partial definition of oppression
s.76(8), namely;
‘In this section ‘oppression’ includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence (whether or not amounting to torture
Republic of Ireland v UK (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 25
give the LP of the meaning of oppression
- wall standing
- hooding
- subjection to continuous noise
- deprivation of sleep
- deprivation of food/drink
R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65
LP that the lying to a suspect would not amount to oppression
Held oppression construed narrowly.
R v Paris, Abdullahi, Miller
LP- interviews oppressive because of their, ‘length and tenor
Miller, IQ of 75, questioned over 5 days, interviewed for 13 hours, 19 tapes recorded of interviews.
Miller asked over 300 times did he kill Lynette White-he denied the murder 300 times-then finally confessed.
R v Emmerson
LP- officer raised his voice and used some bad language is not oppressive.
R v Heaton [1993]
D confessed to manslaughter during a 75 minute interview in presence of his solicitor.
Officers raised voices/repeated questions.
CA-held no oppression;’Perfectly legitimate for officers to pursue the interrogation of a suspect with a view to eliciting his account or gaining admissions. They are not required to give up after the first denial or even after a number of denials.’
Mohd Ali Bin Burut v Public Prosecutor
- the special procedure was inherently oppressive!
- the statements were obtained by oppression.
nb-the confessions were not obtained during the special procedure but in a gap between special procedure and signing of written statements.
Lord Steyn;
‘Nothing had happened to remove the implied threat of further sessions subject to the special procedure.’
R v Seelig
Held-personal characteristics of D can be considered. Here D was ‘experienced’, ‘intelligent’ and ‘sophisticated
LP- If the PC is taken in to account then court would choice the level of Oppression
reliability ground
s.76 (2) (b)-See Lord Lane LCJ in R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65 at p70-a confession may fail to be excluded under para (b) where there is no suspicion of impropriety.
R v Goldenberg (1988) 88 Cr App R 285
On appeal-asked for confession to be excluded under s 76 (2) (b)-arguing it was unreliable because it might have been made in the hope of getting bail.
LP- herion addict is unreliable- ‘a causal link must be shown between what was said or done and the subsequent confession.’
R v Crampton (1990) 92 Cr App R 369
‘The mere fact that someone is withdrawing, and may have a motive for making a confession, does not mean the confession is necessarily unreliable.’
R v Effik (1992) 95 Cr App R 427
only remove in if the confession had been made while he was experiencing acute withdrawal symptoms.
R v Walker
Thus any mental or personality disorder could be relevant re; s.76 (2) (b)-it was not limited to classes of case where D had a ‘mental impairment’ or ‘impairment of intelligence or social functioning’ or a very low IQ.
R v McGovern (1991) 92 Cr App R 228 CA
Police unlawfully refused her access to a solicitor and breached the recording requirements, (Code E).
In a 2nd interview a day later, with a solicitor present-D made a longer, more detailed/coherent confession