Committal Proceedings and Section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
| Author | C. E. Bazell |
| Date | 01 May 1987 |
| Published date | 01 May 1987 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838705100204 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
COMMENT
COMMIlTAL PROCEEDINGS AND SECTION
76(2)
OF
THE POLICE
AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT
1984
The authors of the numerous books and articles on the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 all seemed to predict that the Act
would introduce significant changes in the daily working life
of
the
Criminal Courts. In
R.
v.
Oxford
City Mugkfrutes, ex
p.
Berry
[1986]
The Times,
December 18, these predictions seem
to
have
born some fruit.
The case dealt with the point as
to
whether section 76(2)
of
the
Act had affected the way that magistrates deal with committal
proceedings under section 6(1)
of
the Magistrates’ Courts Act
1980.
It was accepted as common ground that prior to the introduction
of this Act, the Divisional Court would not interfere with the
decision
of
examining justices, provided that they followed the
procedure for committal proceedings laid down in the Magistrates’
Courts Act 1980 and the Magistrates’ Courts Rules
(SI
1981
552).
This view was based on the ground that it was the job
of
the
examining justices to decide whether or not there was a prima facie
case against the defendant and it was not for them to try the case.
Decisions therefore as
to
whether evidence was or was not
admissible were left for the judge at the Crown Court to determine.
Section 76(2) states “if in any proceedings where the prosecution
proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused
person, it is represented to the court that the confession was
or
may
have been obtained-(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”.
In this case, the defendant was committed for trial on five charges
189
To continue reading
Request your trial