BPTC Law Notes BPTC Criminal Litigation Notes
A collection of the best BPTC notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor".
In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BPTC notes available in the UK this year. This collection of BPTC notes is fully updated for recent exams, ...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our BPTC Criminal Litigation Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
CONFESSIONS AND ILLEGALLY / IMPROPERLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE
DEFINITION OF CONFESSION
any statement wholly or partly adverse (when made) to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words of otherwise (s82(1) PACE)
wholly adverse statement / admission
= admissible as evidence of truth of contents
partly adverse / mixed statement
must contain a significant admission of fact on any issue i.e. capable of adding some degree of weight to pros case on an issue relevant to guilt
whole statement admissible BUT judge should direct jury that exculpatory parts carry less weight
admissible as truth of its contents if tendered by pros
wholly exculpatory statements
if relevant, = admissible only as evidence of D's reaction when first taxed with incriminating facts (the longer since being taxed, the less weight)
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS
pros can adduce if relevant AND NOT excluded
only evidence of facts known personally by maker
Can co-D's confession be used against D?
joint trial
if charged for joint offence AND case against D1 based solely on out of court confession, if jury sure of truth of D1's confession, can use findings based on confession (NOT confession itself) to assess D1's guilt / role to determine D2's guilt
D1's confession incriminating D2
general rule:
evidence against D1 only
BUT whole confession admissible even though incriminates D2
exception where admissible against both:
if confession made in presence of D2 AND D2 acknowledges incriminating parts so as to make them his own
Accusations in D's presence
if someone accuses D of crime in his presence evidence of truth of contents of accusation except in so far as D accepts statement to make it his own:
can accept by words OR conduct
if D NOT cautioned, silence inadmissible unless D and person putting D1's confession to D2 on even terms with D2 (some protest / denial expected)
can accept whole OR part of accusation
RESTRICTIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY
PACE s76(2)
must exclude (unless pros prove BRD that it was not) if confession obtained:
by oppression
in consequence of something said or done to D which would be likely to render any resulting confession unreliable
applicability
only applies before evidence adduced ("proposes" to give evidence)
oppression
ordinary meaning; includes torture, inhuman / degrading treatment, use / threat of violence
may depend on D's characteristics e.g. mentally ill / intelligent
breach of PACE code automatically = oppression
unreliability
in consequence of thing said or done to D
thing said / done = external to D
drug withdrawal (done to self)
NOT given food / water
incentive to confess, inducement
-----AND-----
if = breach of PACE code, thing said done = significant and substantial (see below)
-----AND-----
causal link between breach and confession
likely to render any resulting confession unreliable
generic, objective test ask: would any confession made under circumstances tend to be reliable?
mental handicap: if confession made without legal representation, almost certainly excluded
s78 PACE (see SGS 6 - confessions and illegally / improperly obtained evidence)
the discretion
s78(1) - 'the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution propose to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it'.
application
applies to pros evidence only
only applies before evidence adduced ("intend" to rely)
when will evidence be excluded
Q: can D have a fair trial i.e. is the evidence reliable?
entrapment
test: have police enticed D into committing a crime which that person might otherwise NOT have committed?
if Y, can exclude under s78
BUT more appropriate remedy = apply to stay as abuse of process
Common law
judge may exclude if prejudicial effect outweighs probative value
can only rely on common law if pros have already relied on evidence
if apply after pros rely, judge can:
direct jury to disregard
direct jury to matters affecting weight of confession
discharge jury
Breaches of PACE codes of practice
must be significant and substantial to engage s78 OR s76, then apply relevant test
failure to caution (unless pros want to adduce answers as lies which would've been given even if cautioned)
improper denial of access to solicitor
NO requirement for bad faith, BUT police bad faith...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our BPTC Criminal Litigation Notes.
A collection of the best BPTC notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of samples from outstanding students with the highest results in England and carefully evaluating each on accuracy, formatting, logical structure, spelling/grammar, conciseness and "wow-factor".
In short, these are what we believe to be the strongest set of BPTC notes available in the UK this year. This collection of BPTC notes is fully updated for recent exams, ...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started