Admissibility Of Confession Evidence
✅ What Is a Confession?
A confession is an admission — wholly or partly — of guilt made by a suspect or defendant.
In English law, the main rule governing admissibility is found in Section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
⚖️ Legal Test under PACE 1984, s.76:
A confession is inadmissible if:
It was obtained by oppression, or
It was unreliable due to anything said or done that could affect its truth.
Oppression includes:
Torture
Inhuman or degrading treatment
Use or threat of violence
Undue pressure or intimidation
Additionally, under s.78 PACE, the court can exclude confession evidence if its admission would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial.
🔍 Key Case Law: Confession Evidence
1. R v. Mushtaq (2005)
🔹 Facts:
The jury asked whether they could convict based on a confession the defendant claimed was not voluntary. The judge had failed to properly direct them on this point.
🔹 Held:
The House of Lords ruled that a confession must be disregarded by the jury if they believe it was not made voluntarily.
✅ Principle:
Confession must be voluntary. If the jury doubts this, they must ignore it.
2. R v. Fulling (1987)
🔹 Facts:
The defendant confessed after being emotionally manipulated (told her partner was cheating). She argued oppression.
🔹 Held:
The court held emotional pressure did not amount to oppression under PACE.
✅ Principle:
Oppression requires more than emotional stress — must be serious mistreatment or threats.
3. R v. Paris, Abdullahi and Miller (1993)
🔹 Facts:
Young suspects were bullied and repeatedly questioned without legal representation. One suspect had a low IQ and was eventually recorded crying while confessing.
🔹 Held:
Confessions were excluded. The interrogation techniques made them involuntary and unreliable.
✅ Principle:
Aggressive or manipulative questioning may render a confession inadmissible.
4. R v. Barry (1991)
🔹 Facts:
Police misled a suspect, suggesting they had strong evidence when they didn’t, and used that pressure to get a confession.
🔹 Held:
Confession excluded. The use of deception made it unreliable under s.76.
✅ Principle:
Misleading tactics can render a confession inadmissible if they create unreliability.
5. R v. Mirza (2002)
🔹 Facts:
The defendant argued that his confession was induced by threats made during the interview.
🔹 Held:
Court ruled that if the threats affected the truth of the statement, the confession must be excluded.
✅ Principle:
Credibility of confession must not be affected by coercion or threats.
6. R v. Sang (1980) (Pre-PACE, but influential)
🔹 Facts:
A confession was obtained through police informants in questionable circumstances.
🔹 Held:
House of Lords held that judges could exclude confession evidence at their discretion if it would lead to an unfair trial.
✅ Principle:
Introduced the idea of judicial discretion to protect trial fairness — later codified in s.78 PACE.
📋 Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Mushtaq (2005) | Jury and voluntariness | Jury must ignore involuntary confessions |
| Fulling (1987) | Oppression | Emotional manipulation ≠ oppression |
| Paris & Others (1993) | Pressure on vulnerable suspects | Intimidation makes confession inadmissible |
| Barry (1991) | Deceptive police tactics | Lies by police may create unreliability |
| Mirza (2002) | Threats during interview | Threat-induced confession excluded |
| Sang (1980) | Pre-PACE discretion | Judges can exclude to ensure fair trial |
RELATED Blog
0 comments