Police Powers: Impact Of The Breach Of These Rules – Statements Obtained Through Oppression (S76 PACE); Exclusion Of Evidence (S78 PACE) (Copy)

1.2.4 Police Powers

Impact of the Breach of Police Station Rules – Statements Obtained Through Oppression (s.76 PACE); Exclusion of Evidence (s.78 PACE)

Introduction

• The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) ensures police investigations respect suspects’ rights while gathering reliable evidence.
• If police breach PACE rules, the consequences affect admissibility of evidence in court.
• Two critical safeguards:
  • s.76 PACE – confessions obtained through oppression or unreliability are inadmissible.
  • s.78 PACE – court may exclude any prosecution evidence if its admission would make the trial unfair.
• These sections enforce fairness, justice, and reliability, protecting suspects from abuse and ensuring integrity of criminal trials.

s.76 PACE – Statements Obtained Through Oppression

• Definition of Oppression (s.76(8))
  • Includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or use/threat of violence.
  • Case law expanded this to include psychological pressure or coercion.
• Rule (s.76(2))
  • A confession is inadmissible if obtained:
    a) By oppression of the suspect.
    b) In circumstances likely to make it unreliable.
• Burden of Proof
  • Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that confession was not obtained through oppression and is reliable.
• Case Law
  • R v Fulling (1987): Oppression interpreted narrowly; police tricking suspect by lying that her lover was with another woman not considered oppression.
  • R v Paris, Abdullahi and Miller (1993): Convictions quashed where confessions obtained after bullying and oppressive questioning – interviews described as “verbal battering.”
  • R v Samuel (1988): Denying suspect access to solicitor made confession inadmissible as unreliable.
• Key Point
  • Even if confession appears true, if obtained by oppression or in circumstances making it unreliable, it must be excluded.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

s.78 PACE – Exclusion of Evidence

• Rule
  • Court has discretion to exclude prosecution evidence if, considering all circumstances, its admission would have an adverse effect on fairness of proceedings.
• Scope
  • Applies not only to confessions, but to all types of prosecution evidence (oral, documentary, physical, forensic).
  • Gives judges broad discretion.
• Factors Considered by Courts
  • Was there a breach of PACE Codes (e.g., denial of solicitor, failure to caution, unlawful searches)?
  • Was evidence obtained unfairly or improperly?
  • Would admitting the evidence undermine public confidence in justice?
• Case Law
  • R v Sang (1980): Before PACE, limited discretion existed to exclude unfair evidence; s.78 expanded this.
  • R v Mason (1988): Confession excluded where police fabricated fingerprint evidence – gross misconduct made trial unfair.
  • R v Khan (1996): Covert recording without authorisation admitted, but court confirmed discretion exists to exclude unfairly obtained evidence.
  • R v Chalkley (1998): Unlawfully obtained evidence not automatically excluded – courts weigh seriousness of breach vs fairness.
• Importance
  • Prevents prosecution benefitting from serious breaches of rules.
  • Encourages police compliance with PACE safeguards.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course

Comparative Impact of s.76 and s.78

Evaluation

Strengths

• Protects suspects from oppressive or unfair police practices.
• Ensures only reliable and fair evidence goes before jury.
• Upholds public confidence in justice system.
• Encourages police compliance with PACE Codes.

Weaknesses

• Oppression definition in Fulling criticised as too narrow.
• Judicial discretion under s.78 can be inconsistent.
• Some evidence obtained unlawfully may still be admitted, undermining deterrent effect.
• Courts reluctant to exclude highly probative evidence, even if obtained unfairly.

Conclusion

• The impact of breaches of PACE rules is significant:
  • s.76 ensures confessions obtained through oppression or unreliability are automatically excluded.
  • s.78 gives courts a flexible discretion to exclude any evidence if fairness is compromised.
• These provisions safeguard the fair trial principle (Article 6 ECHR) and maintain integrity of the justice system, ensuring justice is not achieved at the expense of fairness.

Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course