R v L (admissibility of confession evidence)

Under section 76(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the issue is assessed objectively and by reference to the circumstances at the time of the confession. The question is whether something said or done was likely to render unreliable a confession of the kind made, not whether the actual confession was true.

There is no automatic rule that an alleged inducement requires exclusion. The result depends on the relevant words or conduct, the surrounding circumstances, whether the confession was made in consequence of them, and whether they were likely to render it unreliable. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained in that way.

The appellant was convicted at Durham Crown Court of historic sexual offences against his step-daughter, including multiple rapes, and was sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution relied, among other evidence, on recorded telephone calls in which the appellant admitted physically and sexually abusing the complainant. The defence contended that he made a false confession because his wife pressured him after the complainant had threatened to report the allegations.

The trial judge admitted the confession after a voir dire under section 76(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the confession ought to have been excluded and that the convictions were consequently unsafe.

Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to admit the confession, and the convictions were safe in any event.

1. Section 76(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires an objective and contemporaneous assessment. Once the statutory issue is raised, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained in consequence of words or conduct likely, in the circumstances then existing, to render a confession of that kind unreliable. The truth of the actual confession is not the statutory question.

2. The trial judge correctly identified the alleged cause of the confession as the wife’s distress and her request that the appellant confess. She was entitled to find that there was no concrete inducement arising from a promise that the matter would not go to the police, because the appellant did not trust the complainant not to report him. She was also entitled to find that he was calm, considered and not psychologically vulnerable.

3. Those findings supported the conclusion that the wife’s distress and request were not likely to render the confession unreliable. The judge had correctly applied the approach in Re: Proulx [2001] 1 All ER 57. R v Roberts [2011] EWCA Crim 2974 concerned a materially different, plain inducement to confess.

4. There is no inevitable outcome under section 76(2)(b). Each case depends on the words or conduct relied on, the prevailing circumstances, the causal connection with the confession, and the likelihood of unreliability. The appellant’s proposed general rule was therefore unsustainable.

5. Alternatively, even if the confession had been wrongly admitted, the detailed evidence of the complainant, the supporting witnesses and the mixed verdicts meant that the convictions were safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 544.
• Durham Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on 21 April 2023 of historic sexual offences and sentenced on 25 May 2023 to 21 years’ imprisonment. The trial judge admitted the confession following a voir dire under section 76(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.