Beeres v Crown Prosecution Service (West Midlands)

A confession is not excluded merely because a detainee was tired, had consumed alcohol, or because Code C was imperfectly followed. The court must assess whether the circumstances created a risk of unreliability or rendered admission unfair. Annex G requires officers to make an evaluative judgment about the detainee’s actual fitness for interview. The eight-hour rest requirement does not automatically prevent interviewing an overnight detainee. Clear advice that legal advice is free, independent, available face-to-face or by telephone, and may be obtained at any time can satisfy Code C without using the expression “duty solicitor”.

The appellant was convicted by Coventry Magistrates’ Court of assault by beating. The prosecution case depended principally on a confession made during a police interview, after an earlier alleged admission at the scene had been excluded.

The magistrate rejected the application to exclude the interview confession under sections 76 and 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The case was stated to the High Court on whether the appellant had been properly advised about legal advice and whether alcohol consumption and insufficient sleep made the interview unfair or the confession unreliable.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Legal advice. Code C was complied with in substance. The appellant was repeatedly told that free independent legal advice was available, either face-to-face or by telephone, and that the right remained available during the interview. Paragraph 11.2 did not require repetition of a formal two-stage process where the continuing availability of advice had already been made clear.
2. The expression “duty solicitor” had no special forensic significance. R v Vernon [1988] CLR 445 illustrated that incomplete advice may justify exclusion where it creates a false or misleading impression. Here the appellant understood her entitlement and repeatedly chose to proceed without legal advice. There was no material breach, unreliability under section 76, or unfairness under section 78.
3. Fitness for interview. Annex G required officers to assess the detainee’s actual physical and mental condition and consider whether answers might be unreliable. Alcoholic incapacity and sleep deprivation could fall within that guidance. The process was evaluative, not mechanical: asserted intoxication or lack of sleep did not automatically prevent an interview where the detainee was coherent and competent.
4. Rest and case stated appeals. Paragraph 12.2 did not require every overnight detainee to receive eight hours’ rest before interview. It concerned longer-term detention. If a detainee was actually too exhausted to be interviewed, the confession could still be excluded under sections 76 or 78. On a case stated appeal under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, the High Court ordinarily accepted the magistrate’s factual findings absent a clear legal, jurisdictional, or exceptional irrationality error.
5. The magistrate was correct to find that the appellant was fit to be interviewed and that the confession was reliable and fair. Neither section 76 nor section 78 excluded it.

1. Coventry Magistrates’ Court: excluded the alleged admission at the scene but admitted the interview confession and convicted the appellant. The magistrate stated the case for the High Court.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate’s decision.