CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT UTILITY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS (AN OVERVIEW)

By

Author

Presented To

Department of Law

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT UTILITY IN CRIMINAL TRIALS (AN OVERVIEW)

ABSTRACT

The confessional statement of an accused person is of great evidential value in the dispensation of justice. It represents the most important and most frequently encountered exception to the rule against hearsay in criminal cases.

This piece of work is propelled toward examining the fundamental conditions of the admissibility in evidence against any person equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person, that it shall have been voluntary in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, exercise or held out by a person in authority.

In this work, we will summarize the most important aspects of the common law rules and proceed to examine the statutory definition and rules of admissibility of confessions.

Chapter one of this work gives an insight into nature, scope and relevance of confessional statement; and the judge’s rule and their application in Nigeria. Chapter two focuses on utility of confessional statement in criminal trials; circumstances in which confessional statement are admissible and circumstances in which confessional statements may be vitiated and application in decided cases.

Chapter three predominantly dwelled on retracted confessional statement and its effect on criminal trials in Nigeria. This chapter also examines whether retraction of previous confessional statements affects it’s admissibility and reasons why accused persons resiles from earlier statements.

Lastly, Chapter four solely focused on certain factors which must be taken into consideration before the confessional statement of an accused person is admitted in evidence

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

An adverse admission relevant to the issues of guilt in a criminal case is known at Common Law as confession, and the same terminology is employed by the Evidence Act 1990 As indicated above, confessions represent the most important and most frequently encountered exception to the rule against hearsay in criminal cases, fundamental changes in the law pertaining to confessions were introduced by the Evidence Act 1990, but in order to understand the principles of admissibility of confessions, it is necessary to understand the principles of admissibility developed at common law to govern the admissibility of confessions Apparently, we will summarize the most important aspects of the common law rules, we will then proceed to examine the new statutory definition and rules of admissibility of confessions

While the common law recognized that a confession might be both reliable and cogent as evidence of guilt, and indeed saw no objection to a conviction in cases where a confession was the only evidence against the accused, the law recognized that a confession could be regarded as reliable only when given freely and voluntarily If coerced on forced, reliability of the confession might be totally compromised and the integrity of the system of administration of justice itself made to suffer The exclusion of evidence obtained through torture, force or other coercive methods was the means of protection of the accused developed by the judges during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when the memory of an age when such methods were commonplace still lingered Its significance may be gauged by the fact that in English law, the rule that a confession obtained by oppression, in circumstances likely to render it unreliable must be excluded, is the only instance of the mandatory exclusion of illegality or unfairly obtained evidence The classic statement of the common law rule as to admissibility of confession was that of Lord Sumner in Ibrahim V R1

          "It has been established that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the persecution to have been voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear, or prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority"

In common parlance, ‘voluntary’ meant simply of one’s free will’ That test of voluntariness, as defined by Lord Sumner was supplemented by Lord Parker CJ in Callis V Gunn2, when he

  1. (1914) A C 559, 609
  2. (1964) IQB 495,501

added the requirement that a confession must not have been

obtained in ‘an oppressive manner’, his observation was, strictly speaking, obiter " the case involved the admissibility of fingerprint evidence But when the Judges’ Rules appeared in revised form in 1964, the introduction started that the rules did not affect the principle, which was overriding and applicable in all cases that:

… It is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person, that it shall have been voluntary in the sense that it has not been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage, exercise or held out by a person in authority

Interestingly, Lord Sumner’s phrases fear of prejudice’ and ‘hope of advantage’ are habitually spoken of as ‘threats and ‘inducements’ respectively It give rise to some problems in the application of the rules of admissibility at common law In particular, the suggestion of some deliberate act in the words ‘threats’ and ‘inducements’ for a time led the courts to concentrate on the mind of the questioner, rather than on the mind of the suspect As the problem may recur, despite the apparently clear wording " of the 1990 act, it is worth pursuing briefly In R V Iseguilla3, the court of Appeal concluded that:

  1. (1975) I W L R 716,721-2

"… Under the existing law the exclusion of a confession as a matter of law because it is not voluntary is always related to some conduct on the part of authority, which is improper or unjustified Included in the phrase ‘improper or unjustified’ of course must be the offering of an inducement, because it is improper in this context for those in authority to try to induce a suspect to make a confession"

This view of the law would have left the accused without recourse in a case where without any improper intent and perhaps even without realizing it, the questioner created some fear of prejudice or hope of advantage in the mind of the suspect’ In such a case, the resulting confession might well be involuntary, but under the Isequilla rule, would nonetheless be admissible In DPP V Ping Lin4, the House of Lords was called upon to decide whether it was the state of mind of the questioner or that of the suspect which was to control the question of voluntariness The House firmly held that it was the latter that governed the question of whether or not the confession was voluntary, and that should therefore also control the question of admissibility

  1. (1976) A C, 574

Indeed, the rules of admissibility applied only where the fear of prejudice or hope of advantage was excited or held out, or the oppression created by a ‘person in authority’, The question of what persons were or were not persons in authority, has, however, settled that a person in authority must have, or reasonably be thought by the suspect to have, some influence over his arrest, detention or persecution, or in other words, be of a person from who a threat or inducement might appear credible The limitation of the rule in this way was not of great importance, since the vast majority of confessions are made to police officers and others who are undoubtedly persons in authority, and it has been abolished expressly by the Evidence Act 1990 But it remains germane to consider it in the light of the common law rule that the fear of prejudice or hope of advantage must have been generated by the person in authority, with the consequence that self-generated fears and hopes would not destroy the voluntariness of the confessions However, the result is different under the new statutory rules, even though the confession is made to a person who previously have been a person in authority

In addition to the rules governing admissibility, the trial Judge had power to exclude a confession, in the exercise of his discretion, where it had been obtained by means of or following a breach of the

Judges’ Rules The Judges’ Rules were rules of conduct and procedure for the guidance of police officers and others concerned in the arrest, detention and interrogation of suspects They were fist promulgated by the judges of the then king’s Bench Division in 1912, and subsequently revised from time to time The Rules were not rules of law, and did not affect the legal principles of admissibility of confession However, in R V May6, Lord Goddard CJ held that the trial judge might refuse to admit a statement if a breach of the rules occurred But the main importance of the rules always lay in the fact that a breach of the rules might provide evidence that the resulting confession was not voluntary

12   DEFINITION OF CONFESSION

At common law, a confession was the name given to an adv-erse admission by the accused relevant to the issue of guilt in a criminal case In Nigeria, as the case in point, confessions are covered by section 27 to 32 of the Evidence Act 1990 The word "confession" is derived from the Latin word ‘confessus’ which mean to speak or confess completely? 7

Under the Evidence Act8, confession is defined thus:

"A confession is an admission made at any time by a person

charge with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime

  1. v Rennie (1982)I W C R64
  2. (1952) 36Cr App R 91,93

A confession, like any other admission, may be made orally, in writing, by conduct or in any way from which a proper inference may be drawn adverse to the maker Usually confessions are made to police officer or other investigators as a result of interrogation, but may equally be made to the victim of an offence, a friend or relative or any other person

The law regarding confessions is now the same in all cases, and it no longer matters whether the person to whom the confession is made is a person in authority

Importantly, although in common law parlance, the word ‘confession’ connotes a full admission of guilt, it has no such meaning in law, either at common law or under the statutory definition As long as any part of a statement is adverse to the maker, in that it has some relevance to the issue of guilt, it will be deemed a confession for the purpose of the law of evidence

More still, going by the definition given by the Evidence Act, it is clear that admission of such guilt can be made "at anytime’ is so far it was made after the commission of an offence Such a confessional

statement can even be made before the accused is charged

  1. The lawyer’s biggest journal of Bendel State University law student Association 1989 Pg8
  2. Section 27(1) Evidence Act cap112 laws of the federation, 1990

The case of Sunday Onungwa V The state9 is very illustrative in this respect In that case, the appellant was convicted of murder It appeared from evidence which the trial judge accepted that, during the investigations (by the police) preliminary to him being charged with the offence, the appellant admitted to ownership of a blood stained matchet recovered near the scene of the murder admitting at the same time that he had killed the deceased "as a result of the work of the devil" The admissions was made in the presence of other members of his family amongst them was his elder brother who also testified confirming the admission made by the appellant It was argued at the lower court that these admissions being "extra judicial" should have been rejected and that when the admissions were made it was not then decided the appellant should be charged with any offence and that no caution was administered to the appellant before they were made Overruling these submissions, the Supreme Court held: ‘that an admission made at anytime by a person charged with crime suggesting the influence that he committed the offence is a relevant fact against the maker and if it is made voluntarily it is admissible in evidence

  1. (1976)2 Scpg 169 RV Udo Eka Ebong (1997)12 WACA

Also, in Gbadamosi V State10, confessions was defined thus:

"Legally, the word ‘confession’ means an admission of an offence by an accused person it means an acknowledgement of crime by an accused person It is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime"

For a confessional statement to be admitted in evidence, it must be freely and voluntarily made The accused person must make it out of his own freewill and choice

13    NATURE AND SCOPE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

Confessions are either judicial or extra judicial Judicial confessions are confessions made in the court in the course of the proceeding in question Section 27 of the act is obviously wide enough in its wording to cover both, but judicial confessions are also expressly dealt with in section 218 and sections 314 of the criminal procedure Act and section 37 of the Evidence Act, also section 157(1), 161(2) and 187(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code If during his trial in court an accused person confesses to the

  1. (1991)6 NWIR PT 196 pg 182 at 189, also IkemsonV State(T989)3 NWTR PT 100 pg455

offence charged, and such a confession is in the nature of a plea of guilty section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act prescribes the consequences of such a plea11", Section 161(2) and 187(1) of these Criminal Procedure Code deals respectively With such consequences in trials in the magistrate courts and in the High Courts of the Northern State It should be noted that by pleading guilty, an accused person does not admit the truth of the facts contained in the dispositions He merely admits that he is guilty of the offence as charged and nothing else12

Under section 314 of the criminal procedure Act, a statement made by an accused person at preliminary inquiry is admissible without further proof unless it is proved that the magistrate purporting to sign the statement did not infact sign it, whilst under section 37 of the Evidence Act any statement made by an accused person at such an inquiring or at a coroners inquest may be given in evidence

Usually ‘admission’ in relation to a crime is used to denote the admission of a fact relevant to the crime, whilst ‘confession’ is used

  1. V Olagunju (1961) 1All N L R 21 RVWilson (1954)VFSC175
  2. RovRiley (1896) QB 309
  3. Edet Obosi J the state (1965) NMIR 119, 122
  4. Customs & Excise Commissioners IV Harz & power (1967) IALLER 177,182

to denote the admission of guilt13 However, the definition of confession seems wide enough to include an incriminating admission falling short of a full confession14"

An admission made in a plea in civil proceedings does not amount to a confession for the purpose of criminal proceedings Also an extra- judicial admission of guilt made in another proceeding not being the one in which it is intended to prove the confession must have been made by the person and not his counsel In R V Asuquo Etim Inyang15 the accused was resident in Calabar and went through a form of marriage in the church there Some 18 months later proceedings were taken against him in the magistrate court to enforce a maintenance order made against him by London magistrate’s court in respect of a marriage which the accused had contracted in England seven years previously Before the Calabar magistrate’s court counsel for the accused admitted the facts of the London marriage The accused himself merely gave evidence as to his financial circumstances Criminal proceedings on a charge bigamy were instituted against him at the Calabar assizes, the prosecution relying solely on the two marriage certificates and the

  1. (1931) I O N L R 33
  2. Olusegun Ofutale & others V the state N M L R 261
  3. (1961) All NLR 654 (FSC)

admissions made before the Calabar magistrate It was held that the admissions could not be treated as confessions for the purposes of proving the criminal charge as they were not made by the accused himself An extra judicial confession though made orally would carry no less weight than the one made in writing16

A confession must be direct and positive, not equivocal In RaimiAdebisi Afolabi V Commissioner of police17, the accused was the storekeeper to a firm in Ibadan When a shortage was discovered in his stores and this was brought to his notice by the manager of the firm, he told the manager that he had taken certain of the stores and sold them to assist defray his election expenses but he did not indicate how much he had sold During a retrial he repudiated this story It was held that, ‘as the alleged confession was neither direct nor positive as to the items contained in the charges, it was not admissible However in R V Akpan Udo Essien18, it was held that a statement amounting only to a confession of implication in the crime cannot be regarded as a confession under this heading A man confess to his own acts, knowledge or intentions but he cannot ‘confess’ as to the acts of other persons which he had not seen and of which he can only have knowledge or hearsay The failure by the prosecutor to prove an essential element in the offence charged cannot be cured by an admission of this kind19", he point has also been raised whether by section 27(1), which speaks of "an admission made at anytime by a person charged", it is intended that a confession, if it is to be admissible, must have been made subsequent to the accused being charged with an offence In R V Udo Eka Ebong20, it was held that a statement may amount to a confession even if made before the accused was charged with the offence However, a statement made before the commission of an offence cannot amount to a confession

About E-Project Material Centre


E-Project Material Centre is a web service aimed at successfully assisting final year students with quality, well researched, reliable and ready made project work. Our materials are recent, complete (chapter 1 to Minimum of Chapter 5, with references) and well written.INSTANT ACCESS! INSTANT DOWNLOAD. Simply select your department, choose from our list of topics available and explore your data

Why Students Love to Use E-Project Material ?


Guaranteed Delivery Getting your project delivered on time is essential. You cannot afford to turn in your project past the deadline. That is why you must get your project online from a company that guarantees to meet your deadline. e-Project Topics Material Centre is happy to offer instant delivery of projects listed on our website. We can handle just about any deadline you send our way. Satisfaction Guaranteed We always do whatever is necessary to ensure every customer's satisfaction

Disclaimer


E-Project Topics Material Centre will only provide projects as a reference for your research. The projects ordered and produced should be used as a guide or framework for your own project. The contents of the projects should be able to help you in generating new ideas and thoughts for your own project. It is the aim of e-Project Topics Centre to only provide guidance by which the projects should be pursued. We are neither encouraging any form of plagiarism nor are we advocating the use of the projects produced herein for cheating.

Terms and Condition


Using our service is LEGAL and IS NOT prohibited by any university/college policies You are allowed to use the original model papers you will receive in the following ways:
  • As a source for additional understanding of the subject
  • As a source for ideas for you own research (if properly referenced)
  • For PROPER paraphrasing ( see your university definition of plagiarism and acceptable paraphrase) Direct citing ( if referenced properly)
Thank you so much for your respect to the authors copyright
X

Need Help Finding or Downloading Your Project Material?

If you don't see the topic you're looking for or You need urgent/express attention, click the WhatsApp Icon/link below to contact ADMIN and get the material you need instantly. We are always available online to attend to your needs. Thanks