Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Author | J A Coutts |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201839606000205 |
| Published date | 01 May 1996 |
| Date | 01 May 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
OF
THE
PRIVY
COUNCIL
EFFECT OF CONFESSION OBTAINED BY OPPRESSION
Burut v Public Prosecutor
of
Brunei
Following a rebellion in Brunei, the death penalty was introduced for
certain firearms offences, rigorous steps were taken to find illegally held
firearms and a 'special procedure' was introduced for the investigation into
the guilt of anyone suspected
of
such an offence, namely, that during police
interrogation the suspect is manacled and hooded. In Burut v Public
Prosecutor
of
Brunei
[1995]
4 All ER 300, four soldiers who were arrested
on suspicion of firearms offences (apparently committed by exchanging
army guns and ammunition for cough mixture) were interrogated in this
way and shortly afterwards made written confessions. At their trial, it was
submitted that these confessions were inadmissible by virtue
of
s 117(a)
of
the Criminal Procedure Code, in that the prosecution would be unable to
sustain the burden placed on it by s 117(2) to satisfy the court that the
confession was voluntary, that is to say that it was not obtained by violence,
inducement, threat or oppression by a person in authority. On the voire
dire, to determine the admissibility of the statements, the defendants did
not testify, and the trial court held that, that being so, there was no evidence
to show that the defendants had been affected by anything said or done by
anyone in authority. The statements were therefore, admitted on the ground
that the court should accept the assertions
of
the prosecution witnesses that
no threats were made to the defendants. On appeal to the Court
of
Appeal
from conviction (and the mandatory death sentence), it was held that,
although the 'special procedure' interrogation was 'inherently oppressive',
there was no evidence that the written statements (which were made later)
had been obtained by oppression.
Upon appeal to the Privy Council, three questions fell to be considered:
(I)
was the 'special procedure' inherently oppressive?; (2) did the use
of
that procedure mean that the written statements had been obtained by
oppression?; and (3) if so, what was the impact
of
the admission of evidence
wrongfully admitted by virtue of the fact that it had been obtained by
oppression? Upon the first
of
those questions, without finding need to refer
to authority, the Board decided that 'for the police to interview an arrested
person while he is manacled and hooded is plainly oppressive'. The second
question-whether
the statements were obtained by this
oppression-eould
only beanswered so simply, since those statements were not obtained during
the interrogation. But the Board nevertheless concluded that, as, during the
interval between the 'special procedure' interrogation and the making
of
the
statements, the appellants were again interviewed by the police and were
allowedno visitors,it could besaid that nothing had happened which removed
the implied threat of further 'special procedure' sessions. The trial court had
therefore misdirected itself in holding that there was no evidence that the
written statements had been obtained by oppression. Against the background
182
To continue reading
Request your trial