The defendant appealed against her conviction for theft. She had been accused of stealing money over many months from the till at the pharmacy where she worked. She said that a confession in interviews conducted by civilian investigators should not have been admitted. She said that transactions had not been put through the till at the instruction of her employer who wanted the cash paid direct to him.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The interviews conducted by the civilian investigators were said to have broken the PACE codes of practice, and the admission obtained by oppression. It was the appellant’s case that she had been prevented from leaving the room; she had not been allowed access to any legal advice, she was threatened that the consequence of what was alleged to have done was prison and the interview was conducted in a threatening manner. In those circumstances, the judge should have concluded that these were allegations that had to be investigated by a consideration of the evidence on a voir dire. Only in that way could they have been tested satisfactorily. It was for the prosecutor under the circumstances to establish that the interview did not fall foul of section 76.
 EWCA Crim 1237, (2010) 174 JP 401,  2 Cr App R 21
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 67(9) 78
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Fuller 1987
The court considered what might be oppressive behaviour by an investigating officer.
Held: ‘oppression’ must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘the exercise of power or authority in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner, the unjust . .
Cited – Regina v Bayliss CACD 16-Mar-1993
A shop store-detective could be said to be a person charged with a duty to investigate offences. Whether he is, is a question of fact in each case, and its determination will turn on the evidence of the terms of the contract between the store . .
Cited – Regina v Liverpool Juvenile Court ex parte R 1988
R was charged with burglary. He objected to the admission of evidence of a confession to a police officer, saying that it had been improperly obtained. Both prosecution and defence suggested the need for a voir dire, but the magistrates declined. . .
Cited – Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands) Admn 13-Feb-2014
The defendant said that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence it having been given when he had not been advised of his rights whilst at the police station because of his inebriation.
Held: The appeal failed. A confession is, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.416579