The defendant had been stopped by police officers whilst driving a car which contained property stolen in burglaries. The question arose whether a statement was a confession.
Held: The court applied the interpretation of section 82(1) suggested in Sat-Bhambra. Kennedy LJ said: ‘In the current edition of Archbold (1993) at paragraph 15-293, dealing with this particular section and that authority, it is said that section 82(1) was not aimed at statements which the maker intended to be exculpatory and which were exculpatory on their face, but which could later be shown to be false or inconsistent with the maker’s evidence on oath. It seems to us that that is precisely the situation here in relation not only to the answers in which the appellant denied ownership of certain items but also in relation to those answers where he accepted ownership of certain items, and accordingly, in our judgment, neither the conversation at the roadside nor, when we come to it, the conversation in the police station yard amounted to a confession.’
Judges:
Kennedy LJ
Citations:
(1994) 99 Cr App R 270
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 82(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Regina v Sat-Bhambra CACD 1989
The defendant was accused of importing heroin. He challenged use of his recorded interviews saying he was suffering hypoglycaemia from his diabetes at the time. The judge excluded later interviews for this reason, but the defendant challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223676
