Where a defendant failed to prevent a statement being admitted in evidence, and sought to be able to challenge it again before the jury, this was a situation where logic must yield, since the jury cannot be asked to accept as an item of evidence a statement made by an accused, while being prevented from considering the circumstances under which it was made. So the jury must be able to take account of those circumstances in deciding what weight and value to attach to the confession.
The law must reconcile two principles: (1) that no accused person is bound to incriminate himself, and (2) that what an accused person says is admissible evidence against him, provided he says it freely and voluntarily.
Lord Justice Clerk Thomson
1954 JC 66
Cited – Regina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Cited – Her Majesty’s Advocate v P SC 6-Oct-2011
(Scotland) The appellant had been interviewed by police without being offered access to a solicitor. He complained that the interview and information obtained only through it had been used to found the prosecution.
Held: The admission of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224425