Miller

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 204
  • Published : March 10, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Westlaw UK Delivery Summary
Request made by :

SHIBBOLETH USER

Request made on:

Saturday, 01 December, 2012 at 02:01
GMT

Client ID:

ukfederation

Content Type:

uk-searchall

Title :

R. v Paris (Anthony)

Delivery selection:

Current Document

Number of documents delivered:

1

Sweet & Maxwell is part of Thomson Reuters. © 2012 Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited

Page1

Status:

Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment

R. v Paris (Anthony)
R. v Abdullahi (Yusuf)
R. v Miller (Stephen Wayne)
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
16 December 1992

Case Analysis
Where Reported

(1993) 97 Cr. App. R. 99; [1994] Crim. L.R. 361; Times, December 24, 1992; Independent, December 17, 1992

Case Digest

Subject: Criminal evidence
Keywords: Admissibility; Confessions; Police interviews
Summary: Confession; oppression; whether obtained by
oppression; whether admissible
Abstract: It is oppressive for interviewing officers to shout, bully and hector the suspect in interview. An interview obtained in oppressive circumstances is unreliable and not admissible. M was charged, with four others, with the murder of a prostitute. The main evidence against M was his confession evidence which was ruled admissible at trial. M, and two other defendants implicated by M's confession, were later convicted of murder. All three appealed on the ground that the confession had been obtained in oppressive circumstances which rendered it unreliable and therefore inadmissible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.76(2) .

Held, allowing the appeals, that the tenor and length of the interviews was oppressive for someone of normal mental capacity and M had been adjudged to be on the borderline of mental
handicap. The interviewing officers could not have acted in a more hostile and intimidating manner. Interviewing for 13 hours over 19 tapes, they had made it clear to M that they would continue to question him until they "got it right". In these circumstances the confession should not have been admitted. The jury might have been prejudiced by that confession evidence against the other appellants and so those convictions were also unsafe and

unsatisfactory and would also be quashed.
Judge: Lord Taylor of Gosforth, L.C.J.; Laws, J.; Popplewell, J. Counsel: For M: Michael Mansfield Q.C. and Nicholas Blake..
Solicitor: For M: Birnberg & Co..

All Cases Cited

R. v Quinn
[1990] Crim. L.R. 581; CA (Crim Div)
R. v Fulling (Ruth Susan)
[1987] Q.B. 426; [1987] 2 W.L.R. 923; [1987] 2 All E.R. 65; (1987) 85 Cr. App. R. 136; (1987) 151 J.P. 485; [1987] Crim. L.R. 492; (1987) 151 J.P.N. 364; (1987) 131 S.J. 408; CA (Crim Div)

Page2

Key Cases Citing

Distinguished
Dookran v Trinidad and Tobago
[2007] UKPC 15; Official Transcript; PC (Trin)
Considered
R. v Thakrar (Ketan)
[2008] EWCA Crim 2359; [2009] Crim. L.R. 357; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)
R. v L (Admissibility of Confession)
[1994] Crim. L.R. 839; CA (Crim Div)

All Cases Citing

Mentioned by
R. (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18; [2012] 1 A.C. 48; [2011] 2 W.L.R. 1180; [2011] 3 All E.R. 261; [2011] N.I. 42; 31 B.H.R.C. 71; (2011) 108(21) L.S.G. 16; Times, May 12, 2011; Official Transcript; SC

Mentioned by
Southall v General Medical Council
[2009] EWHC 1155 (Admin); [2009] 2 F.L.R. 1246; [2009] 3 F.C.R. 223; [2009] LS Law Medical 449; (2009) 109 B.M.L.R. 27; [2009] Fam. Law 670; (2009) 153(22) S.J.L.B. 33; Official Transcript; QBD (Admin)

Considered
R. v Thakrar (Ketan)
[2008] EWCA Crim 2359; [2009] Crim. L.R. 357; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)
Mentioned by
Huggins v Trinidad and Tobago
[2008] UKPC 32; Official Transcript; PC (Trin)
Distinguished
Dookran v Trinidad and Tobago
[2007] UKPC 15; Official Transcript; PC (Trin)
Mentioned by
R. v L (George)
[2004] EWCA Crim 1414; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)
Mentioned by
R. v Foster (Geoffrey...
tracking img