Criminal Law 1: Evaluating Confession Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

This essay provides a detailed examination of confession evidence within the framework of criminal law, primarily focusing on the legal standards and admissibility criteria in the United Kingdom. It begins by defining evidence and emphasizing the significance of confessions as a crucial form of evidence in criminal investigations. The essay delves into the legal aspects of confession evidence, including the examination of witnesses and physical objects, and the importance of legal compliance for evidence to be admissible in court. The essay specifically addresses the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), particularly sections 76 and 78, which govern the admissibility of confessions and address issues such as oppression and unreliability. It explores scenarios where confessions may be deemed inadmissible due to coercion or unreliable circumstances, such as when suspects are denied adequate rest or information. The essay also references the case of Regina v. Robert Graham Hodgson, highlighting the practical implications of these legal principles. Overall, the essay provides a comprehensive overview of the complexities surrounding confession evidence, emphasizing the balance between ensuring the conviction of the guilty and protecting against unfair legal proceedings.

Role of Confession in a criminal case
Considering Confession as an
evidence
Student Credentials

Criminal Law 1
Introduction
While investigating a case, the major aspect that needs to be taken into consideration is the
evidence. This evidence makes the investigation easier and relieves the parties from the
burden of proof. The question here arises as to what is “Evidence” or what can be considered
“evidence”. The word evidence is used in an investigation as to in relation with the
information or the sources that provide such information that help individual parties in
proving or disapproving certain points as per their requirement before any clear facts are
stated or found out1. Evidence has been defined by various scholars and various researchers
but all of the definitions conclude upon the same idea that evidences include all the
information and all the aspects related to that certain case to direct towards a specific point in
order to agree with something or disagree for that matter. Here in this discussion, the issues
that shall be debated upon include numerous aspects related to evidences. Especially the
‘Confession ‘, how important it is to preserve a confession if made and where is it admissible
and everything else related to confession shall be discussed further.
Confession as an evidence
The major sources of evidence that have been considered throughout the years include
examination of witnesses, observations of how witnesses respond and what they respond to2.
The other key aspect in relation with evidence is that the analysis that revolves around certain
physical objects that are in some or the other manner related to the act of crime. Evidence
does not just refer to the materialistic objects but also certain specific inter –relations amongst
individuals, places that are somewhat related to the crime scene or the crime in any manner,
even the objects involved are in some or the other manner are evidence3. With the help of
1 Hse.gov.uk, 'Key Rules Of Evidence - Court Stage - Enforcement Guide (England & Wales)' (Hse.gov.uk,
2019) <https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/rules-key.htm> accessed 27 December 2019.
2 Civil Evidence Act 1968
3 Evidence Act 1851

Criminal Law 2
these evidences, the courts take specific steps and consider each one of them while making a
specific decision as per the circumstance or court deems fit.
Now there are certain legalities that need to be fulfilled or in consideration of which the
evidence should be so as to be admissible in the court. There are a few rules or conditions
that these evidence shall be in accordance with, so that the court even considers them as valid
information so as to be considered while making decisions. In United Kingdom, there are
certain laws that ultimately decide to what can be considered as evidence in cases. In not just
United Kingdom but worldwide countries have made certain laws or statutory laws in
accordance with which evidence is made acceptable or else the information collected is not
allowed in the court of law.
Criminal Justice Act 1957, states it clearly as in under the section (1) that the “factual
admissions may be made of any fact of which oral evidence may be given in any criminal
proceedings” which means that the admissions cannot be misused in order to admit any
evidence which otherwise will not be included or regarded as an unlawful evidence as per the
court and might have a huge chance to be excluded by the court4.
Similarly, in another act which is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 discusses a
kind of evidence which a criminal gives away on his/her own will and the said evidence is
said to be self –crematory as the person admits to what crime he/she has committed5. This is
known as Confession and it has been discussed under the said act under section 76, how this
evidence can be and cannot be used depending upon the situation or the circumstance is what
this section states6. Rules and regulations where it is acceptable as evidence in the court and
when it non –admissible in the court everything has been discussed over there. A brief idea
behind the whole section is, that an admission can incorporate based upon any announcement
4Criminal Justice Act 1957
5 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984
6Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76

Criminal Law 3
or a statement completely or incompletely unfavourable to the individual who made it,
regardless of whether made to an individual in power or not and whether made in words or
something else. Issue here is that whether the said announcement has been gotten by abuse or
coerced conditions or in conditions which make it temperamental is constantly an issue of
truth in every one of the conditions.
On the off chance that a litigant wishes to challenge the acceptability of an admission or the
confession that is being questioned for its acceptance, the court will ordinarily choose the
issue and decide upon what it thinks is best by holding a smaller than normal preliminary
(popular by the name of 'voir dire') where both the sides can go head and argue and try
proving their points and in order to do they can produce evidence supporting their particular
points in relation with the admissibility of the confession in question7.
Admissibility of confession under the PACE section 76 or the Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 can only be done under this section if the confession or the said evidence is not
disputed or either has been obtained by implying force on the individual as it will be a
forceful or coerced admission and not a confession or if something has been stated during a
situation which is unreliable such as a quarrel between two individuals, in such a case, the
prosecution shall have to provide or for a fact prove the reasonable doubt behind the said
confession of the other part8.
Another aspect that is being talked about in this section is the Oppression or the use of force
while a confession is made. It refers to any kind of abuse such as the utilization or risk of
viciousness, torment, and cruel or corrupting treatment. This term is quite what is stated in a
dictionary or the meaning here in scenarios as such applies the same as specified in a
7Legislation.gov.uk, 'Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984' (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019)
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/part/VIII/crossheading/confessions> accessed 27 December
2019.
8Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s76

Criminal Law 4
dictionary or a general meaning which is “exercise of authority or power in a burdensome,
harsh, or wrongful manner; unjust or cruel treatment of subjects, inferiors, etc, or the
imposition of unreasonable or unjust burdens"9.
Especially if a meeting that has kept going straight for 13 hours or so, within which the law
enforcement officers yelled and tortured the alleged criminal to speak or admit a certain
thing, to which the suspect clearly denied yet keeping him in custody and doing the same
procedure again and again and specially where the confession of the suspect is not changing
at all even after going through so much was considered as oppression in every manner, where
the police was trying to imply something that was not there or the act was not committed by
that particular individual or the suspect in this case. Whereas, a scenario where the suspect in
this case was held under custody and questioned at a moderate pace and did provide the
suspect to consider his or her answers for that matter so that the suspect can think and
respond to the questions that are being put up in front of him by the law enforcement officers.
In this certain case there was no yelling that took place by the law enforcement officers did
raise their voices when required can in no manner be considered an oppression but a general
questioning with respect to the case which is allowed by the court so as to conduct various
investigations, which is how most evidence is collected by analysing the witness or the
suspect by questioning individuals in detail. The court at last has the whole authority so as to
declare a certain questioning as an oppressive one or not depending upon the circumstance of
the case where the admissibility of the confession in the court is concerned.
In certain scenarios, the confession in its own becomes an unreliable source of evidence, in
such scenarios all the efforts that went into obtaining that confession are of no use as the
confession itself becomes non –admissible. One such circumstance that makes a confession
unreliable is when a confession or an admission or even a statement has been made under
9 Gary Slapper and David Kelly, The English Legal System (15th edn, Routledge 2014).

Criminal Law 5
conditions or certain circumstances which itself make the said statement or confession that
the individual has made untrustworthy or something that cannot be relied upon. Especially a
circumstance where the suspect was not at all provided proper time to think or rest or initially
before starting the enquiry or such investigation or questioning was not informed about what
is about to happen or what thus might lead to10. Another aspect that makes a confession
unreliable is when the law enforcement officers did not comply with the codes of practice and
where it can be proven that there was no record of the said questioning or investigation.
Section 78 of the act talks about how the court can avoid a certain confession or under which
circumstances the confession was obtained and if obtained through invalid or illegal means or
coerced methods, then this admission or confession by the criminal becomes difficult to work
with and has an adverse effect on the court’s proceedings11. This refers to that, since, the
court holds the responsibility as well as power to analyse each and every situation
surrounding the case as well as the sources used to acquire that certain confession along with
the methods used, as well as the fact that admitting such confession as evidence might lead to
an adverse effect upon the whole investigation as well as the case in the court and the
decency of the procedures. In such scenario, if it deems fit for the court to do so, it can
prevent the evidence to be known in the court itself. Section 78 was drafted or incorporated
with an idea to deal with the particular cases or certain circumstances that could or could not
be earlier recognised since situations or circumstances can change quite often and soon as
well. Hence, there are not many laws that revolve around this aspect, there is no certain case
law that characterize or in any way clarify the extent of this section. When an application is
submitted to the court along with the evidence so that the evidence is submitted, the court can
opt for these processes; the court has the duty so as to analyse the said circumstances under
10 Bette L Bottoms, Cynthia J Najdowski and Gail S Goodman, Children As Victims, Witnesses, And Offenders
(Guilford Press 2009).
11 Richard Glover and Peter Murphy, Murphy On Evidence (15th edn, Oxford University Press 2017).

Criminal Law 6
which the mentioned evidence has been obtained. Such purpose wide expression shall enable
the honourable court to consider, the whole setting to the proof and how it was acquired has
been mentioned.
The Section 76 of PACE includes the rejection of any kind of admission or confession as
such by the court under certain circumstances does not affect the capacity of the court to
restrict such admissions. Evidence that has been obtained by any kind of illegal means or by
disobeying the legal system or any law as specified by PACE is probably not going to be
tolerated in any scenario, similar to an admission acquired by a stunt. There is no necessity
for the specialists to have behaved inappropriately before proof is avoided and great
confidence by agents will not pardon genuine ruptures of PACE and the codes of training.
Where there is dishonesty with respect to the examiners, this will generally prompt the
avoidance of proof. Individuals ought to guarantee that they know about the conditions of the
codes12.
The prominent case Regina v. Robert Graham Hodgson (2009) EWCA Crim 49013, widely
known as Sean Hodgson is one such case that falls under the issue being discussed here and
might help in elaborating and explaining more about what is confession and how it is being
dealt with under the English law currently. Sean Hodgson is a name widely known in the
United Kingdom legal system due to the crimes he allegedly confessed to.
After years of investigations and even after being charged for the crime, when a thorough
investigation found out that he was just a regular burglar and was not capable or the criminal
for the case he was charged for, he was released after 27 years of jail time for murder of a
barmaid Teresa De Simone.
12 Rachel Quickenden, 'Admissibility Of Dassey Confession UK Law | Corker Binning' (Corkerbinning.com,
2016) <https://www.corkerbinning.com/making-a-murderer-the-admissibility-of-brendan-dasseys-confession-
in-uk-law/> accessed 27 December 2019.
13 [2009] EWCA Crim 490.

Criminal Law 7
When DNA evidence was reviewed, it was found out that the criminal who committed the
crime had to have a blood group of AB or A+ while Sean’s blood group was O. In 2009 it
was actually found out that Sean Hodgson was actually innocent and the judges passed the
order to release him as soon as possible. People who believed that Sean was innocent were no
more to celebrate their loved one being released from the prison and could never see the
justice being served. It was later found that on basis of which confession Sean was sent to the
prison, which was made by him to the priest, there were four other people who made the
same confession and they were found to be discounted by the involved detectives.
In Sean’s case, he was enquired in such a way before any of the other guardians got involved
that he himself started believing something that was not true. The investigation held by the
law enforcement officers before an attorney could be consulted or involved was such that the
accused responded to it in such a manner that he felt guilty of a deed he never committed and
confessed to the priest regarding the same.
Later when the whole investigation was done again and it was found that the DNA collected
then at the crime scene did not match the arrested person or Sean in this case, it was also
found that Sean was mentally ill and was thrilled with the whole idea of freedom even after
27 years of jail time. Since at that time or the time when crime occurred, there was not much
advanced technology to check the DNA or match it with the DNA of other person or any
such technique. But when the advancement was made, the investigations were done and then
it was recognized that the person who was withheld or punished in this case which was Sean
was never the person who actually committed the crime in the first place and faced the
punishment with a guilty mind for around 27 years. He was held liable for both the rape and
murder of Teresa de Simone while for staters he never did anything much than a small theft
or burglary, apart from this, he never committed any crime or anything as such which was
punishable to this extent.

Criminal Law 8
The way of enquiring the alleged criminal made him feel like a criminal and also act like one
due to his mental illness the situation worsened and that resulted in Sean confessing to the
criminal act. When later in the years, the CCRC took the case again to the court for the
appeal; the accumulated evidence which was collected from the crime scene, 30 years ago
was researched upon thoroughly using the modern technology. It was found that the person
that has been punished is actually not the one who committed the crime and was told to be
released as soon as possible.
As happened in this case, there became a possibility for various other cases where the
confession was taken or documented with coercion or force by the detectives in charge or the
other investigative authorities and law enforcement officers to be re –examined and their
investigations to be taken seriously and not relying on the circumstantial evidence for
decision making. In cases where criminals are still alive, if possible, a DNA test so as to
prove their innocence in the cases they were allegedly framed for. There is a huge possibility
where a similar conduct of police or the law enforcement officers has taken place in cases
similar to this one14.
Since, technology was not that developed during that time, later in the years investigation was
redone. When the truth related to the DNA results came out, there were several questions as
to the capability of the police and social trust they lost due to cases as such became an issue
amongst the locals. The court passed another judgement based on the new evidences and
made sure that Sean Hodgson was released the same day without any further delay15.
14 Richard Edwards, 'Sean Hodgson Timeline' (Telegraph.co.uk, 2009)
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5011787/Sean-Hodgson-timeline.html> accessed 31 December 2019.
15 HEATHER MILLS, 'False Confessions Responsible For Many Flawed Convictions: Heather' (The
Independent, 2019) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/false-confessions-responsible-for-many-flawed-
convictions-heather-mills-on-the-reasons-why-some-2323933.html> accessed 31 December 2019.

Criminal Law 9
Since in this case none of the rules were broken and manipulated in any manner, the
confession made by Sean was made purely out of his conscious mind16. He knew about the
circumstances he was in and still chose to give a confession because he was mentally ill and
that was found out to be totally an innocent person who with just a few misconceptions about
the circumstances gave a confession and agreed to all the acts which he did not even commit
as well as a few genuine ones that he actually committed which included few small burglaries
and thefts17.
Mental constraints made upon Sean at that time especially defenceless to this mentally of
manipulative cross examination, a significant number of the officials' strategies have all the
earmarks of being drawn from the "Reid Technique," which was for quite a while the most
generally utilized cross examination convention in the nation. The method intensely depends
on bogus proof ploys and different types of double dealing. It pursues a nine–advance
methodology:
A cross examiner defies the suspect with declarations of blame (Step 1), at that point creates
"topics" that mentally legitimize or pardon the wrongdoing (Step 2), intrudes on all endeavors
at forswearing (Step 3), conquers the presume's truthful, moral, and passionate protests (Step
4), guarantees that the detached suspect does not pull back (Step 5), shows compassion and
comprehension and inclinations the suspect to collaborate (Step 6), offers a face–sparing
elective understanding of the supposed liable act (Step 7), gets the suspect to describe the
subtleties of their wrongdoing (Step 8), and changes over the last proclamation into a full
composed admission (Step 9)18.
16 BBC, 'Miscarriage Of Justice Man Dies' (BBC News, 2012) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-
20109311> accessed 31 December 2019.
17 Richard Edwards and Paul Stokes, 'Victim Of Britain's 'Longest Miscarriage Of Justice' Apologises For False
Confession' (Telegraph.co.uk, 2019)
<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5005718/Victim-of-Britains-longest-miscarriage-of-
justice-apologises-for-false-confession.html> accessed 31 December 2019.
18 Cga.ct.gov, 'INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES' (Cga.ct.gov, 2019) <https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-
R-0071.htm> accessed 27 December 2019.

Criminal Law 10
Agents are urged to begin by blaming the suspect while stressing the significance of coming
clean. They learn approaches to manufacture bogus sympathy with suspects, for example,
moving the ethical fault for the offense to someone else or communicating understanding for
the suspect’s activities. Examiners are urged to sit physically close to the suspect, keep up
"delicate and warm" eye to eye connection, and talk earnestly. At the point when a speculate
makes a confirmation inferring blame, specialists are coordinated to offer expressions of
support. The system works in affirmation inclination; the directions guarantee agents that
while an honest speculate will remain unflinching in her disavowals, a liable individual will
submit to the "subject" the specialist presents19.
The larger part discovers some importance in the thought that the analysts' strategies were not
as such coercive, however that is a distraction. These cases can not be evaluated dependent
on one sentence, or one bathroom break, or the solace (or scarcity in that department) of one
room. The Supreme Court has taught that the wilfulness request requires a full thought of the
intensifying impact of the police methods "as applied to this suspect”. Huge numbers of the
components the lion's share refers to as proof inclining for a finding of wilfulness—the
delicate meeting room, offers of nourishment and drink, typical talking tones—saw with
regards to the kinds of inquiries and answers the examiners were requesting and Dassey's
yielded scholarly incapacities, were coercive. Mental writing makes this unmistakable. An
admission can be pressured at this point dependable, or it very well may be wilful however
temperamental. However regardless of whether it were valid that Sean’s admission uncovered
"basic" subtleties, the admission would not be acceptable in proof if the totality of the
conditions exhibited that it was not intentional20.
19 Kate Gooch and Piers von Berg, 'What Happens In The Beginning, Matters In The End: Achieving Best
Evidence With Child Suspects In The Police Station' (2019) 19 Youth Justice.
20 Hock Lai Ho, 'The Fair Trial Rationale For Excluding Wrongfully Obtained Evidence' [2019] Ius Gentium:
Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice.

Criminal Law 11
For a long time, the Reid system has been scrutinized by researchers and specialists for
expanding the pace of bogus confessions. As far back as Miranda, the Supreme Court
cautioned that "even without utilizing ruthlessness, the 'third degree' " utilized in the Reid
strategy "claims a substantial cost for singular freedom and exchanges on the shortcoming of
people," and "may even offer ascent to a bogus admission"21. As of late, Wicklander–
Zulawski and Associates, one of the country's biggest police counselling firms, said it will
quit preparing criminologists in the strategy it has instructed since 1984, expressing that it "is
not a powerful method for getting honest information". After a spate of prominent bogus
admission cases in the 1980's, Great Britain progressed from an accusatorial and coercive
Reid–like way to deal with an insightful model of meeting which restricts double dealing,
pressure, and minimization22. Meta–examinations of twelve diverse research facility tests
show that the accusatorial methodology expanded both genuine and bogus paces of
admissions, while the data gathering approach expanded the pace of genuine admissions
without likewise expanding bogus confessions23.
The prerequisite that admissions must be intentional is a rule at the core of our legitimate
framework. Albeit mental and physical torment and compulsion are typical in certain nations
as a methods for acquiring "admissions," our arrangement of equity dismisses the idea that
feelings can be gotten through such misuse.24 We will not acknowledge such lead as methods
for getting data, not just on the grounds that it impacts the veracity of the admission, but since
it is direct that we as individuals cannot endure from our legislature25. For a situation, for
21 Liz Martinez, 'Security, Law Enforcement React To Change In U.S. Interrogation Technique'
(SecurityInfoWatch, 2017) <https://www.securityinfowatch.com/security-executives/article/12314618/security-
law-enforcement-react-to-change-in-us-interrogation-technique> accessed 27 December 2019.
22 Amelia Mindthoff and others, 'A Survey Of Potential Jurors’ Perceptions Of Interrogations And Confessions.'
(2018) 24 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
23 Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson, Rafael Gonzalez and Susan Young, 'The Risk Of Making False Confessions: The
Role Of Developmental Disorders, Conduct Disorder, Psychiatric Symptoms, And Compliance' [2019] Journal
of Attention Disorders.
24 Michael H. Fox, 'Fire, Coerced Confession, And Wrongful Conviction: A Tale Of Two Countries' [2018]
Crime and Justice in Contemporary world.
25 Dylan French, 'The Cutting Edge Of Confession Evidence: Redefining Coercion And Reforming Police
Interrogation Techniques In The American Criminal Justice System | Texas Law Review' (Texas Law Review,