Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 76

Confessions

Part VIII Evidence in Criminal Proceedings—General

(1)In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section.

(2)If, in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained—

(a)by oppression of the person who made it; or

(b)in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof,

the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession (notwithstanding that it may be true) was not obtained as aforesaid.

(3)In any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, the court may of its own motion require the prosecution, as a condition of allowing it to do so, to prove that the confession was not obtained as mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(4)The fact that a confession is wholly or partly excluded in pursuance of this section shall not affect the admissibility in evidence—

(a)of any facts discovered as a result of the confession; or

(b)where the confession is relevant as showing that the accused speaks, writes or expresses himself in a particular way, of so much of the confession as is necessary to show that he does so.

(5)Evidence that a fact to which this subsection applies was discovered as a result of a statement made by an accused person shall not be admissible unless evidence of how it was discovered is given by him or on his behalf.

(6)Subsection (5) above applies—

(a)to any fact discovered as a result of a confession which is wholly excluded in pursuance of this section; and

(b)to any fact discovered as a result of a confession which is partly so excluded, if the fact is discovered as a result of the excluded part of the confession.

(7)Nothing in Part VII of this Act shall prejudice the admissibility of a confession made by an accused person.

(8) In this section “oppression” includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence (whether or not amounting to torture).

F759(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definitions used in section 76 2

proceedings

“proceedings” means criminal proceedings, including service proceedings;

Defined in s.82(1) · see it in the full Act
confession

“confession”, includes any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise;

Defined in s.82(1) · see it in the full Act

Cases considering section 76 66

Her Majesty’s Advocate v P (Scotland)

[2011] UKSC 44 · 6 October 2011Limits

The provision excludes disputed confessions obtained through oppression or circumstances likely to make them unreliable, while preserving the admissibility of independently probative fruits subject to section 78(1) (see paras [24]; [32]-[33]). Exclusion of a confession does not itself affect the admissibility of facts discovered through it. This supports admitting independently probative derivative evidence, subject to the fairness discretion (see paras [18]; [32]-[34]). The provision was cited when distinguishing admissible facts discovered through a confession from evidence that the accused’s statement led to their discovery (see para [33]). The provision was cited when distinguishing admissible facts discovered through a confession from evidence that the accused’s statement led to their discovery (see para [33]).

Regina v.Mushtaq (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

[2005] UKHL 25 · 21 April 2005Interprets

The majority held that the provision’s policy requires the jury to disregard a confession which it considers was or might have been obtained by oppression or other improper means. Lord Carswell considered that the subsection itself governed only the judge’s admissibility decision. (see paras [36]; [46]–[48]; [73]) The court treated oppression as a statutory ground requiring exclusion unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was not obtained in that way. The majority’s jury direction gives continuing effect to that policy after admission. (see paras [27]; [36]; [46]–[47]) The court treated words or conduct likely to render a resulting confession unreliable as an exclusionary ground. If the jury considers that a confession was or might have been obtained in that way, the majority held that it must be disregarded. (see paras [27]; [47]; [56]–[57])

Judgments - Hasan (Respondent) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (formerly Regina v. Z (2003) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

[2005] UKHL 22 · 17 March 2005Interprets

A statement must be assessed in the circumstances existing when it was made. A wholly exculpatory or neutral statement is not a confession merely because it later becomes damaging (see paras [58]-[59]). The subsection excludes confessions obtained by oppression or in circumstances likely to make them unreliable unless the prosecution disproves those conditions beyond reasonable doubt (see paras [49]-[51]). The provision addresses confessions obtained by oppression. Oppression ordinarily entails impropriety by the interrogator (see paras [51]-[52]). The provision excludes a confession obtained in consequence of something likely, in the existing circumstances, to make a resulting confession unreliable (see paras [49]-[51]). Cited as permitting the court of its own motion to require the prosecution to prove that a confession was not improperly obtained (see para [49]). The non-exhaustive definition of oppression includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence (see para [52]).

46 more judgments, and what each says about section 76, are in the case-law panel in the full Act.

Amendments and notes

3 notes from legislation.gov.uk

Amendments

  1. F759S. 76(9) repealed (18.6.2012 for specified purposes, 5.11.2012 for specified purposes, 28.5.2013 for specified purposes) by Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), s. 336(3)(4), Sch. 3 para. 56(4), Sch. 37 Pt. 4; S.I. 2012/1320, art. 4(1)(c)(d)(2)(3) (with art. 5) (see S.I. 2012/2574, art. 4(2) and S.I. 2013/1103, art. 4); S.I. 2012/2574, art. 2(2)(3)(c)(d), Sch. (with arts. 3 4) (as amended (4.11.2012) by S.I. 2012/2761, art. 2) (with S.I. 2013/1103, art. 4); S.I. 2013/1103, art. 2(1)(c)(d)(2)(3) (with arts. 3 4) text repealed for certain specified purposes only, see the commentary.

Modifications

  1. C561S. 76 modified (2.10.2000) by S.I. 2000/2370, rule 27(2), Sch. 3 Pt. III para. 18(c)

Extent

  1. E5S. 76 extends to England and Wales only with exceptions as regards courts martial, see s. 120(1)(6)-(8)