R v Crampton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1990 |
| Date | 16 November 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Mr Justice Tucker and Mr Justice Turner
Criminal evidence - drug addict - fitness to be interviewed
Whether or not a drug addict undergoing withdrawal was fit to be interviewed in the sense that his answers could be relied on was a matter for those present at the time.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division so held in rejecting an appeal by Kenneth Crampton against his conviction on July 11, 1989 at Knightsbridge Crown Court (Judge Babbington and a jury) for permitting premises to be used for the supply of heroin and conspiracy to supply heroin, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Mr David Batcup, instructed by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Patrick Bucknell for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITH said that the appellant, a heroin addict, had made admissions at interview in the police station 19 hours after his arrest when he might have been undergoing withdrawal.
The defence contended that the confession was thereby rendered unreliable and should have been excluded by the trial judge either under section 76(2)(b) of the 1984 Act or through the exercise of his discretion under section 78.
The police had relied on their own judgment to determine whether he was fit to be interviewed. They agreed that they would not have interviewed him if they had known he was withdrawing.
His Lordship distinguished R v GoldenbergUNK ((1988) 88 Cr App R 285) in which the appellant had requested the interview and the court held that nothing had been said or done in the terms of section 76(2)(b).
It was in fact doubtful whether the mere holding of an interview at a time when the appellant was withdrawing was within section 76(2)(b), although for the appeal the court would assume that it was.
The words of the subsection seemed to postulate some words spoken by the police or some acts done by them which were likely to induce an unreliable confession.
The word "unreliable" meant "cannot be relied on as being the truth". The section was concerned with the nature and quality of the words spoken by the police or things done by them which were likely to render the confession unreliable in the sense that it was not true.
It was quite plain that if these acts and words were of such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re Proulx
-
Derek Martin Robinson v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...at the time of the admissions on 22 August. The word `reliable’ means `cannot be relied upon as being the truth’: see R v Crampton (1991) 92 Cr App R 369 at 372. Whether in the light of other material or investigation the admissions may be said or shown in fact to have been true is immateri......
-
Subject Index
...[1994] Crim LR 924 ...36R v Clare [1995] Crim LR 726 .......... 169R v Corelli [2001] EWCA Crim 974.. 175,176, 177R v Crampton (1990) 92 Cr App R 369........................................... 172, 173R v DPP [2003] EWHC Admin 3074 .. 116R v Davis (1993) 92 Cr App R 110 ... 255R v Davis, Ro......
-
Defensive Use of a Co-Accused's Confession and the Criminal Justice Act 2003
...existed prior to PACE: see R v Watson (1980) 70 Cr App R273.25 R v Sat-Bhambra (1989) 88 Cr App R 55.26 (1988) 88 Cr App R 285.27 (1990) 92 Cr App R 369.28 See e.g. Dennis, above n. 15 at 301–3, and G. Gudjonsson, The Psychology of Interrogations,Confessions and Testimony (Wiley: Chichester......