To What Extent Are Courts Prepared to Exclude Evidence Obtained Improperly during The Course of Police Interviews - Assignment Example

 To what extent are courts prepared to exclude evidence obtained improperly during the course of police interviews? Confessions are an integral part of any trial and can at times lead to a conviction of a defendant simply on the merits that the confession of the accused was of such creditability. The introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has allowed for quite a number of discretions to the police. However there are certain sections in the act that pertain to the specific topic of confessions and their admissibility in court. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act have set out in section 82 of the act the definition of what would constitute a confession1. Confessions are those statements that go against the interest of the person who is making them and may have an adverse effect on the individual either wholly or partly. These confessions are normally made to a person of authority who is seen as someone who may be able to help better the situation. In other times, the confessions may be made to people who are held to be people of respect such as religious men and so on. The form in which the confessions are made can be in words, written or otherwise. Confessions have been used at times by the prosecution for the basis of their case and can at times be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. In the case of the Russell murders where Lin and Megan Russell were killed by the accused Michael Stone2, the confession that was supposedly made by the defendant was the piece of evidence that led to the successful conviction by the jury. This case can show how important it is for any person to be careful with what they say in the presence of others and so for this purpose there is in the act a section that declares the inadmissibility of certain confessions made. Code C of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act looks to ensure that the process of investigation into any criminal activity is done in a fair and proper manner; however, there is no law that is binding on the judge that will lead to the disbarring of any confession in court. Before 1979 it was left to the discretion of the judges to decided whether a certain confession was obtained in an unfair manner and if it was admissible in the trial or not. Later in the case of R v Sang3 (1979) the House of Lord took away the discretion and held that confessions that were improperly made were not to be allowed in court making the decision binding on all courts of the country4. Yet the counsel also has the discretion to seek its inadmissibility on the grounds that it is contrary to section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in a situation where the confession is allowed in court. Section 76 of PACE5 regulate how confessions are to be dealt with in a criminal investigation and subsequently, the trial. Section 76 (2) states that if in a trial the prosecution in any way tries to bring forth evidence that has been taken from a confession made by the accused which was obtained due to oppression of the accused or due to something of the similar sort then that confession cannot be allowed by the court. If the prosecution still wishes to have the confession submitted as evidence then they need to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the confession was contrary to the section stated above6. It is the duty of the defense counsel to challenge the evidence that the prosecution puts forward in a trial. However, even if the court allows for the confession to be put to the jury as evidence it is not necessary that the counsel not put the question to the jury itself. When there is a dispute as to the authenticity of the manner in which the confession or evidence has been obtained then the judge must hold a trial within a trial7. This is also known as voir dire and here the judge will decide whether there is an issue with the submitted evidence on the basis of the statements and depositions made by the prosecution and the defense counsel. There is no clear indication as to whom the burden of proof lies upon in a voir dire. In the case of R v Fulling (1987) QB 4268 a woman made a confession to the charge of false insurance claim during her third interview. She, however, claimed that the confession was made when the police told her that her lover was in the police station at that time and having an affair with a woman. The court in this situation held that the degree of misconduct on part of the police in this situation was not enough to amount to any form of oppressive treatment and so allowed the confession as evidence. What amounted to oppressive treatment was considered in the case of R v Paris, Abdullah and Miller (1993) 97 Cr App R 999 when M was interviewed by the police a number of times and continuously denied his involvement in the murder and even denied his presence at the scene of the crime. However, later on he admitted that he was present and finally after much coercion from the police officers conducting the interview he even admitted to having stabbed the victim. In such a case of mistreatment and under the environment in which the accused was held in the court deemed was enough to intimidate and invoke one to confess and held the confession to fall under section 76 (2) of PACE10. Courts will also need to be cautious of confessions that have been made by people who are not in a condition to either understand or know what they are confessing to. In the case of those who are mentally incapable it is necessary that a solicitor be present at the time of confessions. In the case of R v McGovern (1990) 92 Cr App R 22811 the accused made a statement to the police after being allowed to have a solicitor present at the time which was in clear violation of the Code C of PACE. In addition the accused was also pregnant at the time and her emotional condition was not deemed to be too stable at the time and a psychologist determined that she had a low IQ and was of subnormal intelligence. The denying of the solicitors services was seen by the court to be a situation that would deem the evidential value of the confession to be of unreliable standards. Not only is section 76 of PACE a hurdle for prosecution to cross, section 78 of the act also poses difficulties for the prosecution. In R v Quinn Crim LR 58112 Lord Lane CJ in his judgment held: "The function of the judge is therefore to protect the fairness of the proceedings, and normally proceedings are fair if ... all relevant evidence [is heard] which either side wishes to place before [the court], but proceedings may become unfair if, for example, one side is allowed to adduce relevant evidence which, for one reason or another, the other side cannot properly challenge or meet."13 Section 78 of Pace states “In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.”. This section is to ensure that the individual being interviewed is aware of what they are confessing and that there may be detrimental consequences for them in the future. R v Beycan (1990) Crim LR 185 14involved such a situation where the accused was being interviewed by the police in English which was not his native language. The officer had asked the accused if he was fine that the interview be done in the same manner that all other interviews are conducted without a solicitor present, to which the accused assented. The court later held that the confession was not admissible on the grounds that the accused was not made aware of his rights. Courts are wary of the procedures used to obtain confession by the accused and take precautions when allowing such evidence into court. They are sure to determine through all means possible that the confessions are not being obtained due to oppressive methods and are made in a legal and proper manner as per the law as stated in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. At times they do let some confessions slide over the boundary but are sure to state why in their judgment. In the case of R v Elleray (2003) 2 Cr App R 1115 the accused was charged and convicted of indecent assault and later on confessed to his probation officer that he had raped the victim a number of times16. The court held that the evidence was admissible in court though made to the probation officers under a blanket of frankness but they stated that: “In deciding whether to exclude the evidence it is perfectly appropriate for the court to have in mind the contrast between the position that exists where an offender is interviewed by the police and that which exists when the offender is interviewed by a probation officer. The court should bear in mind the need for frankness between the offender and the probation officer; the fact that there may not be a reliable record of what was said; that the offender has not been cautioned; and that the offender has not had the benefit of legal representation. The protection which the court can provide under s 78 in the majority of cases should be sufficient to ensure that no unfairness occurs to an offender.”17 There are certainly situations where there may be a miscarriage of justice due to the allowance of certain evidence which the defense may argue is admissible. In the case of United States of America v Charles Tanner18 the defendant argued that the judge was wrong in allowing certain evidence and misleading the jury19. It is not possible for the courts to remove all injustice and perform to the best of their abilities. However, case law does show that courts do make an effort to ensure that there is no confession that is coerced or obtained through improper manner that is allowed in trial. If there is a something wrong in the manner of trial and submission of evidence then higher courts do try and redress the problem when there is an appeal by the displeased party. Judges are making an effort to ensure that the accused receives a fair and just trial and that there is no part played by the police to gather evidence that may frame the accused. Thus parliament has made provisions and statutes for the protection of the rights of those who are to stand trial and judges maintain and implement these laws to the fullest. In the recent case of a man convicted of fondling with a younger child was allowed a new trial when it was shown that the confession he had made about the encounter was due to coercion tactics by the detectives20. This shows the commitment by judges to uphold the law with regards to evidence and the rights of the accused. References Barnett, H and Jago, R (eds). (2011). Constitutional . Oxon: Routledge. Crown Prosecution Services [online]. (2010) [Accessed 21 December 2010]. Available from: . Editor Judges uphold Stone conviction. (2005). BBC News, 19 January, p.-. Hannibal, M and Mountford, L (2007). LPC Handbook on Criminal Litigation 2007-2008. First. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnstone, G and Ward, T (eds). (2010). Law and Crime. London: Sage. Kansas [online]. (2010) [Accessed 21 December 2010]. Available from: . Keane, A (2008). The Modern Law of Evidence. Seventh. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Leagle [online]. (2010) [Accessed 21 December 2010]. Available from: . Oxford University Press [online]. (-) [Accessed 21 December]. Available from: . Oxford University Press [online]. (-) [Accessed 21 December]. Available from: . R v Beycan (1990) Crim LR 185 R v Elleray (2003) 2 Cr App R 11 R v McGovern (1990) 92 Cr App R 228 R v Quinn Crim LR 581 R v Fulling (1987) QB 426 R v Paris, Abdullah and Miller (1993) 97 Cr App R 99 R v. Sang (1979) 3. WLR 263. UK Statute Law Database [online]. (2010) [Accessed 21 December 2010]. Available from: . United States of America v. Charles Tanner (2010) 09-2370. Wolchover, D (2006, October). THE VEXED ISSUE OF GAOL CELL CONFESSIONS. (8). Barrister of Gray’s Inn, London. Available from: . Accessed: 21 December 2010. Read More