BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Alagaratnam v R. [2010] EWCA Crim 1506 (05 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/1506.html Cite as: [2010] EWCA Crim 1506 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT KINGSTON UPON THAMES
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BINNING
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE DOBBS
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE PERT QC
(sitting as an additional judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)
____________________
JAY MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER ALAGARATNAM |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
THE QUEEN |
Respondent |
____________________
Christopher Hehir (instructed by the CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 22 June 2010
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Stanley Burnton :
Introduction
The facts
"Because Mr Dias has been arrested as you're aware, again from the same bedroom with you and in relation to the Royal Bank of Scotland card in the name of Sara Briggs, he believes you brought it into the bedroom? What have you to say about that?"
TDC Field asked further questions:
"How well do you know Mr Dias?
Are you good friends with him?
Is there any reason why he would say that you are responsible for bringing them into the house?"
The appellant made no comment answers to all these and other questions.
"I think that in view of your answers there is little point in continuing the interview at this time. We have a large amount of other matters, other offences where women have been viciously attacked that we shall talk to you about tomorrow and also again your questions about this matter. What I would like you to do is sleep on it overnight. Think about what Mr Dias may or may not have said about your involvement in these matters. I appreciate, I believe you may be quite influenced by him, he's 24, you're 16. Think very carefully about your position. You're in a very precarious position you find yourself at this time. These are very, very serious street robberies. The method that's used I would suggest is far, far worse than holding a knife to a young lady's throat, far worse. We'll go into that tomorrow. Do you understand? Thanks for nodding your head."
"I wish to make this statement to clear up a misunderstanding during my Interview yesterday. I was questioned about a Samsung phone. I wish to confirm that I own 2 black Samsung mobile phones. … "
The contentions of the Appellant
The statutory provisions
76. Confessions.
(1) In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.
(2) If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained—
(a) by oppression of the person who made it; or
(b) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof,
the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid.
(3) In any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, the court may of its own motion require the prosecution, as a condition of allowing it to do so, to prove that the confession was not obtained as mentioned in subsection (2) above.
….
(8) In this section "oppression" includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence (whether or not amounting to torture).
78. Exclusion of unfair evidence.
(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes 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.
(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any rule of law requiring a court to exclude evidence.
Discussion