GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Confessions and Inferences

jessie-lou English 80 cards

Cards in this deck (80)

  1. 1R v Condron and CondronHeroin addicts, solicitor advised no comment interview. Judge read s.34 direction. On appeal, could only draw inferences as long as pros has established satisfactory case first.
  2. 2Condron v UKEcrHR- felt judge didn't reflect proper balance as far as art6 concerned. should direct that inference only if satisfied that D's silence could only be sensibly attributed to having no anser or one that wouldn't stand XX.
  3. 3R v Argents.34, in the circumstances shouldn't be restrictive, relevant things- age, experience, mental health, sobrierty, legal advice
  4. 4JSB Direction s.34had no answer that he believed would stand up to scrutiny, has since invented account, has since tailored account to fit pros case.
  5. 5s.38(3) on s.34Conviction cannot be based solely on inference from silence, pF case for pros must be found to exist first.
  6. 6Condron V UKSilence on the advice of solicitor, not an automatically reasonable stance, must be given appropriate weight.
  7. 7R v BecklesLord Woolfe CJ- jury must consider if D genuinely relied, reasonable to do so, true explanation for silence, reasonableness in not mentioning must be determined by jury, unreasonable= inferences
  8. 8R v ArgentJury not concerned with correctness of advice but the reasonableness of D's conduct. One circumstance is the advice.
  9. 9R v Howell (Jeffery John)must be soundly based objective reason for silence, if solicitor advising client, if have good defence best to mention it before trial to avoid a s..34 inference
  10. 10R v Petkar - Rix LJs.34 summarised direction- facts relied on ID'd, inferences which may be drawn, shouldn't convict wholly on this, only if fair and proper, guilt inference if only sensible reason, where pros case so strong calls for answer, evidence not able to draw inferences from
  11. 11JSB 2004 Specimen Direction s.34If D says didn't mention legal advice, if accept this, it's a consideration but doesn't stop conclusion from silence, person given advice can accept/ reject it. D warned failure to mention may harm defence.
  12. 12Condron v UK, s.34 and art 6as long as appropriate safe guards, compatible
  13. 13Murray v UKwhile right to silence/ against self incrimination at heart of fair trial, not absolute, providing not sole reason to convict, can draw inferences.
  14. 14Beckles v UKin situations where clearly calls for explanation from D, silence may be taken into account providing safeguards- direction about s.34 and judges decisions, would breach to convict on inference alone
  15. 15R v B - reform of s.34?cofA described provision as notorious minefield.
  16. 16Prof Birch on s.34inferences will carry little weight compared to other corroborating evidence, complex direction, cost-benefit analysis of whether to direct on silence. needs repealing?
  17. 17Lucas DirectionWhere shown that D's lied, to watn juries against jumping to conclusion of guilt
  18. 18R v LucasLie must be deliberate relate to material issue, motive must be guilt/ fear of truth. must be reminded conceal truth for other reasons. statement must be shown clearly to be a lie by other evidence.
  19. 19R v BurgessLucas and s.34? 4 circumstances where overlap: 1- Def relates to alibi, 2- consider desirable to look for support of evidence. 3- where pros seek to rely on something said in court in relation to lies as evidence of guilt, and 4- fear jury will do 3.
  20. 20R v StanislasD may have lied and failed to mention- s.34 direction, may be necessary to give both, or tailor, special modified direction to meet the case.
  21. 21R v RanaSome cases may require both, however usually better to select the one that better meets the need and modify it to meet the circumstances
  22. 22R v Hacketusually unhelpful and confusing to give s.34 and Lucas
  23. 23Fruits of the poisonous treeS.76(4),(5) if during inadmissible confession, D speaks certain way, can admit edited section to show this. prosecution can't prove those facts were discovered as a result of an excluded confession.
  24. 24s.34 CJ and Public order act.Failure to mention something when questioned that you later rely on in court.
  25. 25article 6 ECHR Right against self-incriminationNot an absolute right, inferences may now sometimes be drawn
  26. 26s.34(1) Trigger conditionswhere evidence given that D failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence during questioning under caution before/ after charge, and if it's a fact reasonably could have mentioned, ss2 applies
  27. 27s.34(2)The court may draw inferences from the failure to appear proper when deciding if D is guilty
  28. 28s.34(2A)limits this, denial of access to solicitor, then can't draw inferences!
  29. 29R v Bowerss.34 can be used where D doesn't give evidence in chief, but where the barrister may try to get facts out from other witnesses, through cross-examination.
  30. 30R v WebberCofA said s.34 broad application, covers any alleged fact in issue, not juts those proven. Applicable where D suggests positive fact of any exculpatory explanation
  31. 31Judicial Studies Board Model Direction on s.34Don't want jury to leap to automatic conclusion of guilt as would be unfair.
  32. 32s.82.3retention of judge's common law power to exclude if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value.
  33. 33R v Sangconspiracy to forge banknotes. Judge has power to exclude confessions made by unfair/ improper means OR when prejudicial outweighs probative value
  34. 34R v Sat-BhambraImporting heroin, diabetic, issue at to whether suffering hypoglycaemia. Here warning jury, CofA felt appropriate.
  35. 35S.76 A PACEenables D to adduce confessions of co-D's where pros have chosen not to adduce it,
  36. 36s.76A Rationalefairness against co-ds who can't challenge. D1 may have motive to incriminate D2.
  37. 37R v Turner and third partiesconfessions of third parties pf inadmissible as HS.
  38. 38CJA 2003confessions of third parties may be admitted under the interest of just safety valve.
  39. 39Inferences From Silence Rationaledesigned to encourage D to raise defence at earliest opportunity if have a good one, prevent ambush at trial, pros can investigate
  40. 40Pace Code CPre trial Reforms with regards to confessions and inferences.
  41. 41Judges RulesPrior to PACE, rules of practice for guidance for police, if rules breached judge could exclude in interests of fair trial.
  42. 42s.82(1) PACEconfession includes any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, includes mixed statemetns.
  43. 43R v Sat-Bhambra-Lord Lane- wholly exculpatory statement not a confession even if later turns out to be a lie.
  44. 44R v HasanLord Steyn- purely exculpatory statement not a confession, provisions of s.76 don't apply but s.78 do.
  45. 45s.76(1) PACE.confessions are pF admissible for the pros, only as evidence against the maker.
  46. 46s.76(2) PACEoppression or behaviour likely to render the confession unreliable may lead to it being excluded, unless pros can prove beyond reasonable doubt in voire dire it wasn't achieved like that.
  47. 47R v DhorajiwalaHad been told that prison was the worst case unless confessed, on appeal judge wrong not to hold voire dire.
  48. 48Burden of ProofIf s.76(2) a or b triggered, rebutable presumption of exclusion, on pros to prove beyond reasonable doubt wasn't obtained in accordance with these.
  49. 49s.76 (2)can only be used before evidence admitted,
  50. 50s.76(2)(a)exclusion of confession pursuant to oppression.
  51. 51s.76(8)statutory definition of oprression includes torture, inhumane or degrading treatment, and use or threat of violence
  52. 52R v FUllingLord Lane supplementary definition of oppression- likely to involve some impropriety on behalf of the police
  53. 53R v MushtaqLord Hutton- rationale behind s.76(2)- weed out unreliable confessions and protect D's rights
  54. 54R v HeatonPolice raised voices at D, held not oppression, appreciate police will get frustrated.
  55. 55R v Paris, Abdullahi, MillerCardiff 3, murder of prostitute. Miller bullied and hectored by police, solicitor did nothing. CofA held oppression, appeal allowed.
  56. 56R v Davisondetained past lawful point and held imcommunicado, no solicitor. Unlawful detention, police exercising authority in wrongful manner, confession excluded.
  57. 57S.76(2) (b)exclusion pursuant to behaviour conducive to unreliable confessions, caused by behaviour of persons other than S.
  58. 58R v GoldenbergD heroin addict, requested interview and confessed. argued only did so on hope of early release. held, not excluded, nothing else influenced him.
  59. 59R v Wahab Judge LJD arrested heroin supply. Improper pressure regarding father having heart attack, solicitor told him no guarantees if made admissions. COfA advice given by solicitor not usually enough to exclude evidence.
  60. 60R v DelaneyD agred 17 and educationally subnormal, IQ of 80. courts apply objective approach when determining police interviewing S with impaired mental characteristics and unreliability- mental characteristics as they actually existed not as Police believed them to be.
  61. 61R v EverettImpropriety not a prerequisite to exclusion under s.76(2)(b). D mental age 8, police unaware of true nature of condition, confessions obtained without protection of PACe provision for disabilities. On appeal, wrongly obtained, even though honest ignorance.
  62. 62Aim of s.76(2)(b)aim to screen out unreliable confessions, vindicate D's rights, and protect vulnerable. Test- whether D acted in manner likely to produce unreliable confession in same circumstances.
  63. 63R v Bow Street Magistrates ex P ProulxExtradition proceedings, confession made to undercover officers. Mance LJ- test is not whether actual confession inaccurate, rather whether circumstances such as it is likely to have been unreliable.
  64. 64R v Barry Trussler [1988]-Drug addict who made lengthy confessions following general chat in cell with police. Excluded at trial, unreliability. denial of sleep may have been oppression also?
  65. 65R v McGovern19 year old 6 months pregnant, first confession no solicitor no record of interview, confessed to mruder, 2nd interview with solicitor confessed again. CofA 1st excluded, tainted 2nd so also excluded.
  66. 66R v Robertsconfession by employee to employer regarding theft. Told if admitted it wouldn't take it further. held unreliable
  67. 67r v MushtaqHoL confession admitted following unsuccessful ap for exclusion under s.76. If not excluded can raise same matters as did in voire dire in front of jury. if jury agrees confession will be disregarded.
  68. 68s.78 PACEdisclusionary exclusion of confessions where they would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings,
  69. 69R v AlladiceDenied access to solicitor, breach of s.58 Pace. if police have breached code in bad faith, likely to lead to exclusion under s.78 PACE
  70. 70R v Walshadditional breaches of s.58, no contemporaneous note made in interview at time. court- interest of justice test must be remembered.
  71. 71Code G-failure to caution, minor deviations do not amount to a breach providing sense of caution preserved.
  72. 72R v ShahImportation case, duty to caution arises where reasonable grounds to suspect offence committed by D.
  73. 73R v Nodenstatement made in ambulance without caution. Ruled inadmissable as wasn't a unspontaneous, unsolicited remark. reasonable belief, should have cautioned.
  74. 74R v AlladiceBreached of PACE won't automatically result in exclusion of evidence if would have no adverse effect on fairness of proceedings.
  75. 75R v Keenanno contemperaneous record where D alleged to make confession. CofA made clear not every breach would mean evidence excluded, must be substantial and make proceedings unfair if admitted.
  76. 76Art 6(3)charged with criminal offencce, rights to avail self with legal assistance
  77. 77Murray v UKIRA suspect held incommunicado. guarantees of art 6 extend to an accused having right to assitance and support by a lawyer throughout the proceeding
  78. 78Salduz v Turkeyarrested on suspicion of belonging to proscribed organisation, interogated without lawyere. breached art 6, D minor at time which carried weight.
  79. 79r v DunfordD's confession admissable despite wrongful denial of legal advice, CofA dismissed appeal.
  80. 80HM advocate v Preliance on fruits of questioning, rape trial. still possible for D to have fair trial, didn't have to exclude as could have just called friend to give evidence

Information

Description
Flashcards on Confessions and Inferences, created by jessie-lou on 17/05/2013.
Created by
jessie-lou
Views
287
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?