Law of Evidence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 5000 words

uprightness of Evidence - Essay Examplein circumstances that render them unreliable. The obvious test is whether or non the statement was made voluntarily or not as evidence by the Section 76(2) of PACE. in that location ar other safeguards against the admission of a defense that whitethorn construct been improperly obtained and thus transformation them unreliable. Section 78 of PACE provides that a confession may be excluded if admitting the confession would render the minutes unfair.4 Section 82(3) of PACE incorporates the common law principle of judicial discretion and permits the exclusion of a confession statement if its prejudicial effect would exceed it probative value.5 The main purposes of the safeguards against admitting confession statements was articulated by noble Griffiths in Lam Chi-Ming v R as follows Their Lordships are of the view that the more recent slope cases established that the rejection of an improperly obtained confession is not dependent only up on possible unreliability but as well upon the principle that a man cannot be compelled to incriminate himself and upon the importance that attaches in a civilized night club to proper behaviour by police towards those in their custody.6 Thus the valueions contemplated by PACE relative to the admissibility of confessions are three fold to safeguard against the admissibility of unreliable confessions to protect the accused persons right against self-incrimination and to protect the accused person from police impropriety. Although a seek following a voire dire (a trial removed the presence of the jury) may rule that the confession was obtained fairly and is thus admissible, the circumstances in which the confession was obtained may nevertheless be laid out before the jury. For instance, in Musthtaq the House of Lords ruled that a judge must apprise the jury that if, despite the judges admission of the confession, if they find that the confession was obtained oppressively or impr operly, they are required to disregard it.7 It was also held in Wizzard v R. that the judge must instruct the jury to disregard a confession admitted into evidence if There is a possibility that the jury may conclude that a statement was made by the defendant, that statement was true, but, the statement was, or may have been, induced by oppression.8 Thus the courts have expounded upon the protections articulated in PACE relative to the admissibility of a confession statement. The main purpose is to safeguard against an unfair and unjust outcome by protecting the accuseds right against self-incrimination, protect the accused against police impropriety and to safeguard against the admission of an unreliable statement. Building on the protection purposes implicit in PACE, Lord Steyn stated in Mitchell v R that the jury ought not to know that the admissibility of a confession statement was determined in a voire dire. As Lord Steyn noteworthy There is no logical reason why the jury shou ld know about the decision of the judge. It is foreign