Thompson v The Queen

Held, (1) that in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines a voire dire in a criminal trial to determine the admissibility of a confession was a question touching the admissibility … of any evidence” within section 3 of the Evidence Act 1988; that, since there was no provision in any statute or statutory regulation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines regulating the admissibility of confessions, after that section came into force such a question was therefore governed by sections 76 and 78 of the English Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and not by the common law test of voluntariness or the Judges' Rules 1964; that the application of sections 76 and 78 of the English Act was confirmed by section 5(1) of the Application of English Law Act 1989; but that having regard to section 6(2) of the Application of English Law Act 1989 the code relating to the questioning of prisoners and their right to receive legal advice prescribed by regulations 86 and 155 of the Police Regulations 1948 was not replaced or supplemented by the provisions of Code C; and that, accordingly, in determining the admissibility of the defendant's confessions the judge had erred in failing to apply the provisions of sections 76 and 78 of the Act of 1984 (post, pp. 937F–938A, 942A–C).

Melville v. The King [1946] A.C. 101, P.C. applied.

Ibrahim v. The King [1914] A.C. 599, P.C. distinguished.

But (2), dismissing the appeal, that in ruling that the defendant had not been physically ill-treated and that the confessions were voluntary the judge had decided matters which she would have had to determine under section 76(2)(a)(b) of the Act of 1984; that the discretion under section 78 to exclude a confession obtained unfairly was the same as that under the common law, and an appellate court should not interfere unless the decision to admit the confession was unreasonable; that the judge had been entitled to admit the defendant's oral and written confessions despite the failure to advise the defendant of his right to consult a lawyer or to make a note of his oral admissions; that, although after the defendant's arrest there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had committed an offence so that the failure to caution him before questioning had contravened regulation 86(3) of the Police Regulations 1948, since he had subsequently made further admissions and a written statement after being cautioned, the judge would have been entitled to conclude under section 78 of the Act of 1984 that the fairness of the proceedings was not so adversely affected by the initial failure to caution that the later confessions had to be excluded; that the Court of Appeal had correctly considered whether it was open to a judge applying the law and practice administered in England to admit the confessions, and there were therefore no grounds for interfering with the decision that if the judge had appreciated that the issue of the admissibility of the defendant's confessions was governed by sections 76 and 78 of the Act of 1984 she would have been entitled to admit the confessions and was likely to have done so; and that, accordingly, no miscarriage of justice had occurred (post, pp. 949A–C, 950G–951A, 952A–B).

Dictum of Lawton L.J. in Reg. v. Osbourne [1973] Q.B. 678, 688; Reg. v. Sang [1980] A.C. 402, H.L.(E.) and Reg. v. Christou [1992] Q.B. 979, C.A. applied.

(3) That although the judge ought not to have told the jury that she had held that the confessions were voluntary, having regard to the summing up as a whole that statement did not constitute a material irregularity; that, further, where the issue of good character was not raised by the defence in evidence, the judge was under no duty to raise the matter, and she had not erred in failing to direct the jury to take the defendant's good character into consideration; and that, therefore, the defendant's trial had been fair and he had properly been convicted (post, pp. 954C–D, 955D).

Mitchell v. The Queen [1998] 2 W.L.R. 839, P.C. and dictum of Lord Goddard C.J. in Rex v. Butterwasser [1948] 1 K.B. 4, 6, C.C.A. applied.

(4) That section 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders Act 1984 did not require examination before trial of the defendant's allegations of physical ill-treatment by the police; and that since no complaint had been made by the defendant before his trial to the competent authorities of the state his rights under article 8 in the Schedule to the Act had not been contravened (post, pp. 955H–956A).