Noticeboard
| Published date | 01 July 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/136571270300700305 |
| Date | 01 July 2003 |
| Subject Matter | Noticeboard |
Notices should be sent to Rosemary Pattenden, School
of
Law, University
of
East
Anglia, Norwich NR4
7TJ,
UK. E-mail: R.Pattenden@uea.ac.uk
Confessions
Exculpatory statements used to incriminatdnited Kingdom
In
R
v
Z
[2003]
EWCA Crim
191
the Court of Appeal accepted that in the light of
Article
6
of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted in
Saunders
v
United Kingdom
(1996)
23
EHRR
313.
a
statement that, when made, was intended
to be exculpatory can be a ‘confession’ for the purposes of the Police and Criminal
Evidence Act
1984,
s.
76 if at the time of trial it is relied upon by the prosecution
as evidence against the accused. In
so
ruling the court departed from an
obiter
dictum
in
R
v
Sat-Bhambra
(1989)
88
Cr
App
R
53
at 61 which was criticised in
(1999)
3
E
&
P
217
at
235-40.244-7.
Because of reporting restrictions, a
full
report of the
judgment is not available.
Cell confession-Jamaica
The accused in
F’ringle
v
The Queen
[2003]
UKPC
9
was convicted of murdering a
woman who had accused him of rape and robbery on an earlier occasion. The
prosecution case depended partly on the evidence of a cellmate,
S.
who gave
evidence that
P
had confessed to him. In the Privy Council his counsel argued
that
S,
who had yet to face trial and was later given a suspended sentence
for
possession
of
a motor vehicle, could have had a motive for making up the
statement and had reported nothing that the police did not already know. The
Privy
Council said that if there were indications that a cell confession might be
tainted by an improper motive (described as ‘not an exacting test’
([2003]
UKPC
9
at
[30])
the judge should draw the jury’s attention to these indications and their
possible significance. Applying the test to the case at hand, the Privy Council
said that the judge should have pointed out that
S
was an untried prisoner, that
it was not unknown for persons in his position to wish to ingratiate themselves
with the police, that to report a confession was a convenient and obvious way
of
doing
so
and that the jury should therefore be cautious before accepting
S’s
evidence.
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
OF
EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
(2003)
7
E&P
197-209 197
To continue reading
Request your trial