Confession Evidence in UK Law

As we understand it, Mr. Dovener says and says rightly that if the Prosecution are minded to put in an admission or a confession they must put in the whole and not merely a part of it. It was an old case in 1827, long before 1898, and as stated in paragraph 1, 228 of Archbold the better opinion seems to be that as in the case of all other evidence the whole should be left to the Jury to say whether the facts asserted by the prisoner in his favour be true.

In a criminal trial, it is the court acting collectively that has the shared responsibility of ensuring a fair trial. In fulfilling their distinct functions, both the judge and the jury, must recognise the need to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial but that does not require the jury to take upon themselves functions that the law properly entrusts to the judge. Provided each fulfils its role the accused will receive a fair trial.

In looking at the safety of the conviction it is relevant to consider whether and to what extent a suspect may have been denied rights which he should have enjoyed under the rules in force at the time and whether and to what extent he may have lacked protections which it was later thought right that he should enjoy. In looking at the safety of the conviction it is relevant to consider whether and to what extent a suspect may have been denied rights which he should have enjoyed under the rules in force at the time and whether and to what extent he may have lacked protections which it was later thought right that he should enjoy.

In an address to the Bentham Club in 1968, Lord MacDermott described "oppressive questioning" as "questioning which by its nature, duration, or other attendant circumstances (including the fact of custody) excites hopes (such as the hope of release) or fears, or so affects the mind of the subject that his will crumbles and he speaks when otherwise he would have stayed silent".

The indications that the evidence may be tainted by an improper motive must be found in the evidence. Where such indications are present, the judge should draw the jury's attention to these indications and their possible significance. He should then advise them to be cautious before accepting the prisoner's evidence.

We find it hard to envisage any circumstances in which such oppression would not entail some impropriety on the part of the interrogator. We do not think that the Judge was wrong in using that test. What however is abundantly clear is that a confession may be invalidated under section 76(2)(b) where there is no suspicion of impropriety. No reliance was placed on the words of section 76(2)(b) either before the Judge at trial or before this Court.

Thus it is that regardless as to whether the admissibility of a confession falls to be considered under section 76(2), a trial judge has a discretion to deal with the admissibility of a confession under section 78 which, in our opinion, does no more than to re-state the power which judges had at common law before the Act of 1984 was passed.