PC (Trinidad and Tobago) The defendants appealed their convictions for murder. They asserted that the police had extracted confessions by torture, and that other evidence had been obtained by oppression.
Held: ‘the issue of whether the alleged conduct of Timothy and Reid in taking Sergeant David to the galvanise in the garden and showing him the guns was voluntary should have been decided by the judge on the voir dire. The conduct which is relied on followed on from such violence as the judge accepted was sufficient to make it necessary to exclude the written confession. The issue as to whether the prosecution had established that their conduct in taking Sergeant David to the galvanise and showing him the guns was done voluntarily fell to be decided just as much as the issue whether the written statements were voluntary.’ The evidence recovered as a result of the oppression should not hanve been admitted, and it would not be possible to apply the proviso, and the conictions were quashed.
Judges:
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Sir Patrick Russell
Citations:
[1999] UKPC 19, Appeal No 18 of 1998
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Commonwealth
Citing:
Cited – Ajodha v The State PC 1982
(From Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago) Lord Bridge of Harwich asked: ‘. . when the prosecution proposes to tender in evidence a written statement of confession signed by the accused and the accused denies that he is the author of the . .
Cited – Thongjai v the Queen; Lee Chun-Kong v the Queen PC 5-Aug-1997
HL (Hong Kong) A challenge on the admissibility of an admission is not inconsistent with a denial that it had been made; one is question for judge, the other a question of fact for the jury. Lord Hutton aid that . .
Cited – Lam Chi-ming v The Queen PC 1991
The inadmissibility of a confession not proved to be voluntary is perhaps the most fundamental rule of the English criminal law.
Lord Griffiths summarised the justification for the rule excluding evidence obtained improperly. Accepting that ‘a . .
Cited – Ibrahim v The King PC 6-Mar-1914
(Hong Kong) The defendant was an Afghan subject with the British Army in Hong Kong. He was accused of murder. Having accepted the protection of the British Armed forces, he became subject to their laws. In custody, he was asked about the offence by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179281