(Note) Sachs LJ considered the meaning of the word ‘oppression’ in the context of a police interview, saying: ‘this word, in the context of the principles under consideration, imports something which tends to sap and has sapped that free will which must exist before a confession is voluntary . . whether or not there is oppression in an individual case depends upon many elements . . they include such things a the length of time of interviewing between periods of questioning, whether the accused person had been given proper refreshment or not and the characteristics of the person who makes the statement. What may be oppressive as regards a child, an invalid or an old man, or somebody inexperienced in the ways of the world may turn out not to be oppressive when one finds that the accused person is of tough character and an experienced man of the world.’
and ‘the courts are not concerned with ascertaining the precise motive of a particular statement. The question before them is whether the prosecution have shown the statement to be voluntary, whatever the motive may be, and that is always the point to which all arguments must return. To solve it, the court has to look to the questions which I have already mentioned. First, was there in fact something which could properly be styled or might well be oppression? Secondly, did whatever happened in the way of oppression or likely oppression induce the statement in question?’
Sachs LJ
(1965) 51 Cr App R 1
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Fulling CACD 1987
It was alleged that evidence had been obtained by police oppression. She had at first refused to answer questions, but an officer talked to her during a break between interviews, telling her that her lover had been having an affair. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.464673