The Exceptions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act illustrates the consequences of any information received from an accused person who is under the police officer’s custody and the fact that whether it amounts to a confession or not relates to the fact as to whether or not it may be proved and it has been strictly complied with the said section. This section serves as an exception to the law of confessions as provided under s.24, 25, and 26 of the Evidence Act. The admissibility of this section is not affected by section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In reference to the precedent case of Pulukuri Kotayya & Ors v Emperor, it discussed the necessary conditions required to operate the said section.
Previously,
…show more content…
The Courts in United Kingdom is being excluded from exercising their discretionary power in the event which it is satisfied that it falls within any of the ambit in Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, In United Kingdom, a defendant is allowed to introduce a confession made by a co-defendant, subject to his proving, on the balance of probabilities, by virtue of section 128 of Criminal Justice Act 2003 which allowed an addition provision to be inserted into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 , for as long as the said confession is not made by way of oppression or in any unreliable circumstances. Furthermore, the courts in United Kingdom has been conferred and given a general discretion either to accept or refuse any statement or confession given as an evidence, under the said Act, if it is satisfied that it would result in undue waste of time, or substantially outweighs the case of admitting it, in the event where the court decided to accept the said confessions. If it is satisfied that it is necessary to secure a fair trial to the accused. …show more content…
Thus, the onus is conferred upon the defence in requesting a voir dire in determining whether the accused’s statement was made to a “person in authority” and in questioning the admissibility of the accused’s
This case commentary discusses the different approaches used to be taken in Victoria and NSW, presuming that the admissibility of the Evidence in ss 97, 98 and 101 is of the same decision, not separate decision .
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
“On the contrary, you’ll have to answer, gentlemen, for violently obstructing the course of justice”(417)
Next there is the problem of cross- examination which contaminates evidence by suggestion. In W and M, two boys aged 10 and 11 years old were convicted of sexual offences but in each case, the complainant, an eight-year old girl, had withdrawn her key accusations under cross- examination. The Court of Appeal however, concluded that the retractions were unreliable because they were obtained by the use of highly suggestive questioning such as ‘This happened, didn’t it?’ The Court’s message is that cross-examiners must avoid contaminating the witness’s answers. Questions may be quite clear but not permissible because they pressure the witness to respond in one way or another. In the case of E, the Court of Appeal repeated that heavily suggestive questions are not permissible because of the risk that the witness will become confused.
accused of a crime. The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
Psychological research and application have established that it is not only people with learning disability or major mental illness that are susceptible to make false confessions. In order for a confession to be false, a person must either confess to a crime that he or she is completely innocent of or overstate his or her involvement in the crime. False confessions can be either voluntary or coerced. Although it is methodologically difficult to establish the frequency of false confessions, anecdotal evidence such as self-reports and case studies indicate that reported cases are only the ‘tip of the iceberg’. It appears that young people are particularly vulnerable and often make false confessions in order to protect others. Standardized psychological tests have been devised in order to assess personality factors such as suggestibility and compliance that render some people more vulnerable than others. The reason people make false confessions is typically due to a combination of factors such as psychological vulnerabilities, nature of the custodial confinement and the police interviewing tactics. Notorious cases of false confessions which have lead to the wrongful convictions of innocent people subsequently spending years in prison represent some of the worst cases of miscarriage of justice in Britain. One such cases, that of Engin Raghip of the so-called ‘Tottenham three’ will be discussed in the context of admissibility of psychological evidence in order to demonstrate how the judiciary has increasingly come to accept the psychological notion that most people, under certain circumstances, are susceptible to making false confessions.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
...en of proof falling on his shoulders, Mr. Myers presented a solid case with seemingly creditable witnesses against Vole (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). Much to Mr. Myers chagrin, Sir Wildrid argued for the defense of his client and provided insight or evidence to discredit all three witnesses for the prosecution (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 33). While “Witness for the Prosecution” was fictional, the movie yielded “whether you were lying then or are you lying now”, which is an expression frequently used in courtrooms today (Hornblow & Wilder, 1957).
Without accepting confessions as legitimate form of evidence to be used in the court of law, the justice system would be in complete disarray what with most suspects making confessions to the police, also having a high likelihood of going on to be convicted. Confessional evidence is of great importance seeing as it is one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Although it is of high regard in evidential law, it would be naïve to say that the law on confessions is down to perfection, especially with such high-profile cases such as the Guildford four or Birmingham six which brought to the surface the potential possibility of fabrication by police and perversion of the use of confessional evidence to bring about a certain result in a case. While known as the most powerful form of evidence to be adduced, it is also known as the “best and worst form of evidence” to deal with. Whether the implementations of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act has succeeded to remedy the dilemmas in respect to confession is up for discussion.
As goes the famous ‘golden thread’ speech given by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP ; “No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” In simpler terms, the general rule above is that the prosecution carries a legal burden to prove the elements of the offence and that the accused only need to raise a defense on a burden that is merely evidential.