Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
| Date | 01 August 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201838404800307 |
| Published date | 01 August 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
COURT
OF
APPEAL
IN
NORTHERN
IRELAND
CRITERIA
FOR
ADMISSION
OF
CONFESSION
R. v. Culbert
The
changes
in
the
law
of
evidence
arising
out
of
the
recent
political
history
of
Northern
Ireland
continue
to raise
problems
in
the
courts.
The
appellant
in R. v. Culbert
[1982]
N.t.
90
eventually
conceded
that
the
only
ground
on which he
could
succeed
was his
contention
that
the
trial
judge
had
been
wrong
in
admitting
evidence
of
the
oral
statement
which he
had
made
to
the
police
and
which his
counsel
had
sought
to
exclude
at
the
trial.
Section
8(2)
of
the
Northern
Ireland
(Emergency
Powers)
Act
1978
provides
that,
where
a
person
has
been
subjected
to
torture
or
inhuman
or
degrading
treatment,
any
statement
made
by him is
not
admissible in
evidence
by
virtue
of
the
special
provisions
of
that
Act.
The
courts
have,
however,
held
that
this
provision
does
not
affect
the
powers
of
atrial
judge
to exercise his
discretion
in
the
interests
of
justice
to
exclude
statements
made
by
the
accused,
even
though
they
are
shown
to he
strictly admissible within
that
Act.
The
law as to
the
admissibility
of
an
accused's
statements
would
appear
to be
clear.
The
questions
which
continue
to arise
are
whether
the
particular
situation
has
been
properly
assessed
by
the
trial
judge
and
whether
he
has
properly
exercised
his
discretion
within
the
limits
imposed
by law.
In R. v. Culbert,
however,
counsel
raised a
new
problem.
As a
result
of
the
Bennett
Inquiry,
the
Report
on Police
Interrogation
Procedure
in
Northern
Ireland
was
published
(1974
Cmnd.
7494),
which laid
down
certain
guidelines
as to police
conduct
in
dealing
with suspects. In
the
present
case,
counsel
argued
that
those
guidelines
set
an
objective
standard
by which to
judge
whether
an
interrogation
exceeded
permissible
bounds
so as
to
result
in a
breach
of
section
8(2)
of
the
Act
of
1978.
But
the
court
held
that
those
guidelines
do
not
relate
to
the
interpretation
of
section
8(2):
286
To continue reading
Request your trial