Evidence - confessions

Card Set Information

Author:
luwhat
ID:
219113
Filename:
Evidence - confessions
Updated:
2013-05-11 17:13:42
Tags:
Evidence confessions
Folders:

Description:
Evidence - confessions
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user luwhat on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. Definition of 'confession'
    • PACE s.82(1)
    • Any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it
  2. Common law rule re silence
    If the accuser and the accused were on even terms, and if an accusation would reasonably be expected to have elicited a response, adverse inferences can be drawn from a failure to respond
  3. Purely exculpatory statements will not come under s.82(1), even if they are subsequently shown to be untrue (and therefore incriminating)
    Sat-Bhambra (1988)
  4. Sat-Bhambra upheld. s.82(1) could not include statements seen as exculpatory at the time but which later became damaging to D
    Z (2003)
  5. A confession will not be admissible if it appears that it was obtained by oppression or in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render it unreliable
    PACE s.76
  6. Woman told by police that her lover was having an affair. Not oppression
    Fulling (1987)
  7. Police officer raising voice and swearing - not oppression
    Emmerson (1990)
  8. D mentally handicapped. Police officers shouted at him and interviewed him in an aggressive way - oppression
    Paris, Abdullahi and Miller (1992) The Cardiff Three
  9. s.76(2)(b) - it makes no difference if the confession is found to be true
    McGovern (1990)
  10. 'Things said or done' does not include things said or done by the person making the confession
    Goldenberg (1988) (Heroin addict, desperate for bail)
  11. s.76(2)(b) can apply even if the interview was conducted properly. Case - D had a personality disorder and was a cocaine addict
    Walker (1998)
  12. s.76(2)(b) - the motives of the person confessing will not be considered
    Wahah (2003) (confessed hoping his family would be released from custody)
  13. Confession can be excluded if admitting it would have an adverse effect on the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances in which it was obtained
    PACE s.78
  14. TEST for s.78
    The breach has to be significant and substantial
  15. Test for s.78 (case)
    Absolam (1988)
  16. Confession excluded under s.78 because D was not informed of his rights. But this was deliberate impropriety (will not always be excluded)
    Beycan (1990)
  17. Right to legal advice
    PACE s.58
  18. D confessed after being refused a solicitor. Inadmissible, because he probably wouldn't have confessed with a solicitor present
    Samuel (1987)
  19. Denied legal advice. But confession still admissible - D was an experienced criminal and the outcome probably would have been the same with a solicitor present.
    Dunford (1990)
  20. D cautioned, then charged with further offences and not cautioned again. Not significant and substantial breach
    Pall (1992)
  21. D confessed to robbery, not realising he was being charged with manslaughter. The police's failure to inform him of the charges was a substantial and significant breach.
    Kirk (2000)
  22. 'Confession' to police officers not recorded - inadmissible
    Keenan (1989) - an unrecorded interview should be noted down ASAP and signed by the suspect
  23. D told police he was a schizophrenic. He was interviewed without an appropriate adult or legal representation and and confessed - inadmissible
    Aspinall (1999)
  24. 'Appropriate adult' must actually be appropriate. In this case, calling a girl's father whom she was estranged from was not an appropriate adult
    DPP v Blake
  25. D confessed in unacceptable circumstances. The next day she confessed again, but in acceptable circumstances. The second confession was tainted by the first - inadmissible
    McGovern (199)
  26. 3 unacceptable interviews followed by one acceptable one. Final interview could not cure the defects of the earlier ones because D's will had been affected
    Ismail (1990)
  27. EXCEPTION to the rule that incriminating statements about D2 made by D1 cannot be admitted as evidence against D2 (hearsay)
    Hayter (2005)
  28. Hayter (2005) rule
    If jury are sure of D1's guilt, they can use this in the case against D2, even if D1's guilt is based on his out-of-court admissions.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview