Alagaratnam v R.

A confession is not rendered inadmissible under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 merely because police information was inaccurate. The court must consider whether the conduct amounted to oppression or was likely, in the circumstances, to make a resulting confession unreliable. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained by either route.

The fairness discretion under section 78 depends on all the circumstances. A confession may remain admissible where the defendant had legal advice and appropriate-adult support, and the evidence does not show that police conduct caused the admission.

The appellant was convicted of robbery at the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames. Property stolen from the victim was found in his possession shortly after the offence. In a later police interview, he made a prepared statement admitting participation in the robbery.

After the confession had been admitted and a police officer had given evidence, the defence sought the discharge of the jury. It contended that police had misleadingly attributed incriminating statements to the co-accused, behaved oppressively, and caused an unreliable confession. The trial judge rejected that application. The appellant appealed against conviction, challenging the admission of the confession under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the confession was admissible and held that the conviction was safe.

2. The court would not disturb the trial judge’s finding that the interviewing officer had not deliberately misled the appellant. The difference between the co-accused’s actual account and the account put to the appellant was limited. In any event, the appellant had been found shortly after the robbery with its proceeds, making it a natural inference that he had brought them into the flat.

3. The police conduct did not amount to oppression for section 76(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 76(8) is not exhaustive, but it indicates the serious character of conduct capable of amounting to oppression. The conduct alleged fell short of that standard.

4. An innocent misrepresentation may in principle be likely to render a confession unreliable under section 76(2)(b). On these facts, however, there was no basis to overturn the judge’s conclusion that the confession was reliable. The appellant had legal advice, the support of an appropriate adult, and reason to explain his possession of the stolen property. His own evidence indicated that any pressure to make an admission came from his solicitor’s advice about the need for an explanation, rather than from the officers’ statements.

5. The prosecution had therefore satisfied section 76, and admission of the confession did not adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings so as to require exclusion under section 78. The court added that an objection to a confession should ordinarily be made before it is put before the jury, allowing factual issues to be resolved on a voir dire outside the jury’s presence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Alagaratnam v R., [2010] EWCA Crim 1506, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and upheld the admission of the confession.
• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames: On 20 August 2009, the appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to five years’ detention in a young offender institution.