Admissibility of Confessions Obtained from Persons Who are Drunk and/or Sleep Deprived at the Time of Interview
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2014.78.3.912 |
| Author | Adam Jackson |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
198
Divisional Court
Admissibility of Confessions Obtained
from Persons Who Are Drunk and/or Sleep
Deprived at the Time of Interview
Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands)
[2014] EWHC 283 (Admin)
Keywords Confessions; Admissibility; PACE, ss 76 and 78; Code of Practice C
The appellant appealed by way of case stated against a decision of Deputy
District Judge Bennett sitting at Coventry Magistrates’ Court on 18 March
2013. The appellant was convicted of battery upon her partner, JL. The
Crown’s case was that during an argument, the appellant struck JL with a
baseball bat. JL did not make a complaint or give evidence at the appellant’s
trial. The Crown relied upon evidence provided by a police officer who
attended the scene and arrested the appellant and a subsequent confession
made by the appellant when interviewed under caution following her
arrest.
At trial the judge conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of
the prosecution evidence. The judge ruled that evidence of an admission
made by the appellant to the police officer upon arrest was inadmissible.
The defence submitted that the confession made by the appellant during
interview in the police station should also be excluded by virtue of s. 76
and/or s. 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and
PACE Code of Practice C (Code C).
The basis of the defence submission was twofold. First, it was argued
that the police officer conducting the interview failed to advise the
appellant properly of her right to legal advice in accordance with Code C
3.1 and 6.1. An agreed transcript of the start of the appellant’s interview
was put before the court and the police officer who conducted the
interview conceded that he did not make specific reference to the ‘Duty
Solicitor Scheme’. However, it was established that the appellant was told
that she was entitled to free legal advice, independent of the police and
that such advice could be given in person or over the telephone.
Secondly, the defence argued that the appellant was drunk and/or sleep
deprived at the time of interview and there had been a breach of Code C
12.2, which obliges the police to provide a detained suspect with eight
hours rest ‘in any period of 24 hours’. On this basis the defence agued that
the confession made by the appellant during the interview was unreliable
and should be excluded by virtue of PACE, s. 76 and/or s. 78. The appellant
gave evidence that she had consumed five pints of lager prior to her arrest
and was ‘quite drunk’ (at [6]) at the time of the interview. The appellant
was taken into custody at 4.07 am, her fingerprints were taken between
5.26 am and 5.42 am, and her interview commenced at 9.55 am. The
prosecution disputed whether she was in fact drunk at the time of her
arrest or interview, relying on CCTV footage of her being booked into
The Journal of Criminal Law (2014) 78 JCL 198–206
doi:10.1350/jcla.2014.78.3.912
To continue reading
Request your trial