Confessions
| Author | Allison Clare |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.70.4.315 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Confessions
R vMushtaq [2005] UKHL 25
The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and possessing
material in connection with the making of a false instrument. At trial the
Crown had sought to rely on certain admissions made following a search
of his home. Whilst accepting that these admissions had been made, it
was argued on the appellant’s behalf that the evidence ought to be
excluded under s. 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The matter proceeded by way of a voir dire during which it was suggested
to police officers that knowing the appellant was caring for his seriously
ill wife in hospital, they had threatened to refuse bail and exaggerate his
involvement in the offence unless he made full admissions in the
absence of his solicitor. The appellant also gave evidence. The trial judge
rejected the application and allowed the admissions to go before the
jury. The same allegations were repeated during the course of the trial
but the appellant did not give evidence. In his summing-up the judge
gave the following direction:
Those allegations [about how the admissions were obtained] were all
denied and no evidence whatsoever has been called to support or sub-
stantiate that allegation. Nevertheless, it is for you to assess what weight
should be given to the confession. If you are not sure, for whatever reason,
that the confession is true, you must disregard it. If, on the other hand, you
are sure it is true, you may rely on it, even if it was, or may have been,
made as a result of oppression or other improper circumstances.
Following his conviction, the appellant appealed on the basis that this
part of the summing-up allowed the jury to rely on a confession which
was or may have been obtained as a result of oppression and therefore
to act in a way which was incompatible with Article 6(1) of the Euro-
pean Convention on Human Rights.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but certified a point of law
of general public importance upon which the House of Lords granted
leave:
Whether in view of Article 6 . . . a judge who ruled pursuant to section
76(2) of [PACE] that evidence of the alleged confession has not been
obtained by oppression, nor has it been obtained in consequence of any-
thing said or done which is likely to render unreliable any confession, is
required to direct the jury, if they conclude that the alleged confession may
have been so obtained, they must disregard it.
The Crown argued that such a direction would amount to the jury
determining afresh the admissibility of the confession and that an appel-
lant’s right against self-incrimination was fully respected by a determi-
nation under s. 76(2) of PACE.
315
To continue reading
Request your trial