Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v Thompson

Northern Ireland Law Reports (Digests) Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
Judgment Date01 January 1977
Date01 January 1977
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland)
(C.C.A.)
R
and
Thompson

Whether statements obtained as a result of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment -Whether trial judge should have exercised his discretion to exclude statements - Whether bias on the part of the trial judge - Whether bias shown by judge's interruptions - Whether trial judge precluded himself from coming to a conclusion by proper judicial methods - Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1973 (c.53) s. 6. - Criminal Procedure - Prima facie evidence by Crown of statements by accused -Onus of proof on accused to raise prima facie evidence of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment -Desirability of having accused's case on this issue presented before evidence in rebuttal is adduced on behalf of the Crown - Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions Act, 1973 (c. 53), s. 6.

The appellant was convicted of the murder of four soldiers and of belonging to the Irish Republican Army. At his trial the judge had permitted written and verbal statements to be admitted in evidence which amounted to complete admissions of all five charges, on the basis that it had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had not been subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statements and that this was not a proper case for the exercise of his discretion to exclude the statements. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge by his questions and interventions during the course of the trial had indicated bias against the appellant, that the trial judge should have excluded the admissions of the appellant and that the verdict of the trial judge was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Held, dismissing the appeal, (1) that the trial judge had not by his interventions during the trial and through his conduct of the trial shown that he had precluded himself from coming to conclusions by proper judicial methods, as his interventions and conduct had to be judged beside the totality of a 19 day trial. (2)...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT