Exclusion Of Evidence

Question 1

Is it classed as a confession if someone says “i assaulted him but it was self defence” to a bouncer?

Answer 1

Yes - it doesn’t have to be wholly or partly an admission and doesn’t have to be police, it can be anyone.

Question 2

can someone nodding their head be a confession?

Answer 2

Yes

Question 3

Is a confession hearsay evidence?

Answer 3

Yes

Question 4

Are confessions admissible?

Answer 4

Hearsay evidence is normally inadmissible however confessions are the exception and they are admissible.

Question 5

Is someone being interviewed without a solicitor classed as oppression?

Answer 5

Yes

Question 6

An officer uses oppression against the suspect’s dad. The suspect then confesses. Is the confession now inadmissible?

Answer 6

No - oppression must be towards the actual suspect for it to be inadmissible.

Question 7

An officer is oppressive towards a suspect. A suspect confesses but this is unrelated to the oppression. Should the confession be inadmissible?

Answer 7

No - there must be a casual link between the act and the confession.

Question 8

Who does the burden of proof rest upon to substantiate oppression?

Answer 8

Onus on the defence to raise a doubt

Then the prosecution must then disprove that the confession was obtained by opporession beyond all reasonable doubt

Question 9

Can i respond if a dp asks me what will happen if they confess?

Answer 9

General rule - no as it will render it unreliable

Exception if it is a direct question

Question 10

I steal 20 from the tea fund. My boss says he will promote me if I admit it. The police are called. Is my confession admissible?

Answer 10

No because of the inducement. The inducement does not have to be made by police.

Question 11

Is evidence obtained through encouraging someone to commit an offence automatically inadmissible?

Answer 11

No not if safeguards are followed. Giving someone the opportunity to commit an offence is fine.

Question 12

What must the court consider when establishing whether to exclude evidence?

Answer 12

The court can exclude evidence at common law where the prejudicial effect of the evidence on the defendant greatly outweighs its probative value

Question 13

If i was to inform Waterhouse that his parents would be told about what happened and he confesses, could it be excluded even if it is a reasonable thing to say?

Answer 13

Yes - it is for the court to decide

Question 14

For evidence to be excluded at common law what does the court concern itself with?

Answer 14

The court will consider only its likely prejudicial effect.

Question 15

If i lie to a suspect i am taking home after custody that i need petrol to encourage them to make a confession on the phone, is it now inadmissible because i lied?

Answer 15

No.

Although this was an untruthful act by the police did it lead directly to any evidence being obtained because of those lies? In R v Bailey; R v Smith [1993] Crim LR 681 a blatant piece of play acting was approved. The investigating officers and the custody officer played out a conversation in front of the defendants, in which the custody officer, appearing to act against the wishes of the investigating officers, insisted on placing the two defendants in the same cell. In fact, the investigating officers wanted the defendants together, as the cell was bugged. The defendants, lulled into a false sense of security, engaged in a conversation which contained a number of damaging admissions, and was recorded. The Court of Appeal found nothing wrong in what the police had done, even though it was clearly a means of circumventing the fact that they could not question the defendants further (because they had both already been charged). The court held that the fact the defendants could not, under Code of Practice C, properly have been subjected to further questioning did not mean that they had to be protected from the opportunity to speak incriminatingly to one another if they chose to do so. It was acknowledged to appear odd that, alongside the ‘rigorously controlled legislative regime’ for questioning it should be considered acceptable for ‘parallel covert investigations’ legitimately to continue, but, provided such stratagems were used only in grave cases and that there was no suggestion of oppression or unreliability, there was nothing unfair about admitting the evidence obtained in consequence. The evidence will be adduced

Question 16

could a high five in interview be a confession?

Answer 16

Yes…

Question 17

For oppression, can the defence use evidence against officers who have mistreated suspects in the past?

Answer 17

Yes

Question 18

What is section 76 exclusion of evidence?

Answer 18

Confessions

Must exclude

Question 19

What is section 78 exclusion of evidence?

Answer 19

Unfairness in relation to any evidence.

May exclude.

Question 20

What is section 82 exclusion of evidence?

Answer 20

prejudicial effect must exceed probative value to exclude any evidence.

May exclude

Question 21

A confession is obtained by oppression. We know that it now MUST be excluded. What if the interview team change and interview again without oppression and he confesses again?

Answer 21

May exclude

Question 22

Can a confession alone prove guilty or do you need corroborative evidence?

Answer 22

Confession alone is sufficient.

Question 23

If we fail to tell a suspect that the victim has died and go on to interview him for an assault, will the be excluded?

Answer 23

Yes

The suspect should be told at least in general terms the level of the offence of which he is suspected.

The question is - would the suspect conduct their defence differently if they knew he was facing a charge of murder and not common assault? If yes - interview is unfair and could be excluded.

Question 24

Is accepting presence at the scene of a crime considered confession evidence?

Answer 24

Yes

It doesn’t have to be absolute ‘confession’ to a crime, but includes statements adverse to the maker, i.e. putting themselves at the scene of the crime.

Question 25

What does the court concern itself with when considering whether to exclude something under section 82 prejudicial effect vs probative value?

Answer 25

Concern itself with the effect that the evidence will have at trial, rather than how the evidence was obtained.

Question 26

If a co-defendant confesses, can it be used as evidence against the other?

Answer 26

Yes

However the other person must be CHARGED in the same proceedings.

Question 27

Suspect confesses and is charged. He implicates someone else too. Co-defendant is arrested. Can the confession be used as evidence against the person arrested?

Answer 27

No - the other person must be charged for the confession to be used

Question 28

If i arrest a police officer for assault and on a house search, i lawfully seize a book from his room about police brutality, would this be admissible?

Answer 28

No.

In what way will the book assist here? The fact is they don’t and their prejudicial effect is likely to far outweigh their probative value, particularly as their probative value seems to be little if anything

Question 29

Is a confession enough to also secure a conviction against another person?

Answer 29

No

This should be coupled with any other evidence incriminating the defendant.

Question 30

The court can exclude evidence if WHAT greatly outweighs WHAT?

Answer 30

Prejudicial effect greatly outweighs its probative value.