R v Myers

At a joint criminal trial, one defendant may adduce a co-defendant’s out-of-court confession where it is relevant to the first defendant’s defence. The confession may be proved through those who heard it, although the prosecution cannot rely on it because of a breach engaging section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

The co-defendant’s status as a party distinguishes the case from a confession by a third party who is not on trial. The trial judge has no general discretion to exclude relevant defence evidence merely because it may prejudice the co-defendant. This principle does not establish that a confession obtained by oppression or in circumstances rendering it unreliable must be admitted.

Melanie Myers and Clifton Quartey were tried jointly for murdering a mini-cab driver. Each alleged that the other had produced the knife and stabbed the victim. Myers had made statements to police admitting that she had the knife and had cut or stabbed the driver.

Because those statements had been obtained in breach of the applicable police Code of Practice, the prosecution did not rely on them. Quartey was nevertheless permitted to elicit them from police officers in support of his defence. Myers was convicted of murder and Quartey of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Myers’s appeal: [1996] 2 Cr App R 335. It certified whether, in a joint trial, an exculpatory confession by one defendant which is inadmissible for the Crown may be adduced by the other defendant, or whether it necessarily offends the hearsay rule.

1. Disposition. The House unanimously dismissed the appeal and declined to answer the certified question in its broad terms. Lord Slynn of Hadley delivered the principal speech, with which Lord Steyn and Lord Hutton agreed. Lord Hope of Craighead agreed in the result and explained the limits of the governing proposition; Lord Mustill agreed with Lord Hope.
2. Admissibility at a co-defendant’s instance. Per Lord Slynn, a defendant may put a co-defendant’s confession to those who heard it where the confession is relevant to the defendant’s own defence and was not obtained in circumstances which would engage section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The confession may bear both upon the maker’s credibility and upon facts in issue. Its relevance to the facts does not destroy its admissibility.
3. Hearsay. Per Lord Slynn and Lord Hope, a confession by a co-defendant who remains a party to the joint trial is materially different from an out-of-court confession by a third party who is not on trial. The reasoning in Reg v Campbell and Williams [1993] Crim LR 448 was preferred to the conflicting reasoning in Reg v Beckford and Daley [1991] Crim LR 833. Reg v Blastland [1986] AC 41, concerning a non-party’s confession, did not govern this situation.
4. Statutory safeguards and judicial discretion. Sections 76(2) and 78 are expressly directed to evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce or rely upon. Section 78 therefore supplied no discretion to exclude relevant evidence tendered by Quartey. Per Lord Hope, the judge had no general discretion to choose the lesser injustice between co-defendants or to exclude relevant defence evidence merely because it prejudiced Myers.
5. Limit. Lord Hope regarded it as open to question whether a co-defendant could rely upon a confession obtained by oppression or in circumstances rendering it unreliable under section 76(2). Such evidence might be worthless for all purposes. The House did not decide that issue because Myers’s statements were not alleged to be involuntary or unreliable.
6. Application. Myers’s admissions were directly relevant to whether Quartey had inflicted the fatal injury. The Code breaches which prevented prosecutorial reliance did not prevent Quartey from eliciting the admissions from the police officers. Their admission was therefore lawful.

1. House of Lords: The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The certified question was left unanswered in its broad form.
2. Court of Appeal: Myers’s appeal was dismissed: [1996] 2 Cr App R 335. The court held that the voluntary confession was relevant and admissible at Quartey’s instance despite the Code breach which prevented prosecutorial reliance.
3. Trial: The judge refused Myers’s application for a separate trial, admitted her statements at Quartey’s instance, and the jury convicted Myers of murder and Quartey of manslaughter.