Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Admissions and Confessions

    Uploaded by

    Bwiranda Kennedy max
    Law of Evidence

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Admissions and Confessions

    Uploaded by

    Bwiranda Kennedy max
    21 views9 pages
    Law of Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Law of Evidence

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    21 views9 pages

    Admissions and Confessions

    Uploaded by

    Bwiranda Kennedy max
    Law of Evidence

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 9
    ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS: = = es A confession is not defined in the Evidence Act, but it statement made by an accused person acknowledging Quilt to the crime R&R waR.to which he is alleged to have commitied, Sec 25 of the Kenyan Evidence Act, defines a confession to that effect. The other E, African Evidence Acts do not define the term. This definition is derived from the case of Swarr’ vs. the Emperor (4938) Vol.1 1396 ALL ER which defines a confession as that statement which the accused person makes for the purpose of admitting the full guilt of the alleged offence.” generally means a Under the Evidence Act, a confession is admissible under the provisions of Sec 24 to 29 of the Act. According to Section 23, confessions are admissible species of evidence. Sec VUE 1G : Sections 24 to 29 are concerned with the methods of obtaining confessions. That is; | ' (a) What kind of a person can record a confession? (b) What actually qualifies to be a confession? (c) What are the consequences of making or obtaining a confession? 2 Who can receive or record a conf ? The Constitution article 28 (3) provides for the presumption of innocence. It therefore gives a right to an accused person not to incriminate him or herseif. However, under the Law of Evidence, there is recognition that confessions are important pieces of evidence. Therefore, they cannot be ignored but befere this category of evidence can be accepted by courts, certain safeguards have been observed which must be fulfilled. Before 1971, confessioris could be made to police officers of and above the rank of corporal. With the 1971 Evidence (Amendment) Act, confessions could only be made to police officers in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The idea of requiring the presence of a magistrate was to Protect the accused persons from the brutality of police officers, which Sometimes lead to improper and forceful confessions, In 1985, the Evidence (Amendment) Act once again amended these Provisions to the effect that, confessions cannot be made to any police Scanned with CamScanner pane, ta (Hons) MUR AIP or a magist@ Act. ' wa a was that magistrates werg f 1985 g Aictere need for police officers to te. This is the position wo = MEM, Dip U annette orga atutobieg officer of or above the law under sectio ne of the reasons for tl very few at the time ant receive confessions indepet the rank of n 23 (1) (a) and his amendme! .d there was U ndently. i ion? Wha an a ae, it must be proved to have been ai In Dep vs. Pinglin (1975) Vol. 3 ALL he the appetant was arrested while smoking heroin. During interrogation, ee pol ice officer yemarked that the appellant assist police and that his confession could ve considered by court. However, the appellant had already revealed to police | his previous dealings in heroin. One of the issues before court was whether the confession of the accused. was made voluntarily, Court emphasized the importance of securing confessions voluntarily. Whefe ah objection is raised in criminal proceedings about the validity of a confession, the burden is on the prosecution to satisfy court beyond reasonable doubt that the confession in question was made voluntary. It must be proved that the statement was not made out of fear or prejudice or because of hope advantage held out by the person in authority. Ref. Sec. 24, Evidence Act, which is to the effect that a confession will be rendered irrelevant and inadmissible if it was cause by any violence, force, threat, inducement or promise calculated in the opinion of court to make it false or untrue, When confessions irrelevant? Ac i A contession made by an accused person is irrelevant if the making of the eek ppeats to the court, having regard to the state of mind of the aes an He ‘0 a the circumstances, to have been caused by a 7 , threat, inducement or promi: i ini ise ci inion the court to cause an untrue confession to be ar ‘ee Before a confession is receiv 1m. ; ed from an owing ion must be adminis accused person, the foll caution idministered by the Officer or ae recording it; « _ not to ‘ You need say anything unless you wish but whatever say will be recorded down in writj, " idence at the trial,” riting and may be used agall in evi Scanned with CamScanner Why do courts insist on voluntary confes: Si Confessions are species of evidence Whleh ae chvays 3 general trend is that suspects do not Normally want to eee The prejudice them and that when such things are said, haces Heed that suspect that there was some undue influence, eason to It is also acknowledged that our machinery of investi inefficient police system, with inadequate resources and technical knowhow is likely to lead to over-zealous officers to adopt all sorts of methods for purposcs of securing a conviction. Such methods may include torture of suspects, threats of mischief e.t.c. This miakes it easier for Police officers to get confessions from suspects. gation is manifested by What makes a confession involuntary? A confession will be declared. involuntary if it was procured by threat, torture, inducement or promise to the accused person. Section 24 is to the effect that, a confession shall be inadmissible if it is procured as a result of inducements or threats exercised on the mind of the accused person an inducement or promise, makes an accused person imagine that he or, she stands a chance of consideration or advantage of favour after confessing. A particular inducement may operate differently from one individual to anothei and what court should consider is the effect of particular words to Particular people consider. R vs, Okello (1915) Vol. 2. Mwangi vs. R 1954 EA, Rik Chelle “Ges A Pie ueucement an it eats: Section 25 Evidence Act: smal = a ae words “confess, Confess and your punishment will be In Mwangi 4 : he to the. ‘bwana “ were held to be an Inducement, tell me op nee on . ee ‘you better think whether you are going to inducements = rene to amount to a threat. It was further held that, Speech e.g, starving ae be effected in other ways other than through T2Y also be directed to = Cused person without saying anything. Threats aN effect on ae i immediate members of the accused, This has Operated on ree the accused, though it must be established that it inducement hes eu of the accused. If the existence of threat of ® confession, The a established, then it may remove the voluntariness of osecution must establish that the alleged inducement 3 Scanned with CamScanner cme ge oun Hie accused at the time the or threat did not operate on confession was made. aaa a a ss es fa ae irrelevant Merely : Rasen ks obtained through deception case: Nayinda vs. R (1959) EA ee a that it erodes the good intention it would appear from the wording Oo it 5. coll 4 on voluntariness. However : i ont a obtained through deception oF the tricks should be ‘ court noted that there is nothing in itted or left out. In Nayinda’s case, : ; i a vihich negatives the discretion of the discretion of the Judges to refer to admit a statement which in thought was not made voluntarily, rts have the discretion to determine . Retraction and Repu! n of a Confession: ' The validity or otherwise of a confession normally becomes an issue when that confession is either retracted or repudiated. Retraction occurs when an accused person’admits that he/she made the statement which is alleged to have been a confession but he goes back to challenge the validity of that statement on some other admissible grounds e.g. it may say that it was not properly transmitted to him. On the other hand, repudiation occurs where” the accused person states that he never made that statement at all. The leading authority on confessions is a case of Tuwamoi vs. R 1967 ents, Dios bee noted that retraction or repudiation of a confessions a re in Upendae cases. This is generally because of t S used to record confessions by police officers in a majority of case Court 7 an Le ee sorte Was actually made and that it w ust also i a 3 toa person with proper authority establish that the confession was ™ in order to i court is aes above, the proper procedure to be followed! a ee ea within @ trial to establish the validity pretie (Cain nie fat notmally arises is that confession was aa) statement was made ea jae regard to the circumstance !! at ia it we : within a trial, Court is free to cal rue i luntarily. In conduc ed who were present at * 4 Scanned with CamScanner Annette Karungi Mutobingwa = LLM-MUK, Dip LP-LOC, LLB (Hons) MUK the confession it may examine signatures or handwritings if ary, alleged by made by the accused. Once court is satisfied, the statement will be allowed to be introduced in evidence as part cf evidence for the prosecution. The rules of recording confessions that are currently being followed by investigator and courts were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Androa Asenua vs. Uganda. SCCA NO. 1/1998. Once a confession has been proved to be valid, the second step will be the requirement for corroboration. According to the courts confessions are in most cases suspect, courts have therefore insisted that as rule of prudence and practice those confessions especially those ‘etracted or repudiated must be corroborated Before they can form a basis for a conviction. Regarding corroboration, court in Tuwamoi V R 1967 E.A 84 was of the view that as a matter of prudence and practice court can only act on a confession if it is corroborated in form material particular by some independent evidence implicating the accused person. Corroboration is however not a legal requirement. Court can therefore proceed and act on confession without corroboration if it is fully satisfied from the surrounding . circumstances that the confessicn is . Court is also duty bound to warn itself and the assessors of the dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence of a confession. In Uganda vs. Mugenyi & Anor 1994 Vol. 4 KLR Court relied on Tuwamoi’s case and went on to hold that, court should accept confession which has been repudiated with a caution and that it must fully satisfy itself that the confession ids true, In Kayemba vs. Uganda the court failed to conduct a trial within a trial and on appeal it was held that since there was no trial within trial to determine whether or not the confession was voluntary, the alleged confession was inadmissible. According to the case of Njuguna vs. R (1954) 21 EACA, it was held inter alia that the statement alleged to be a confession was made voluntarily. Scanned with CamScanner y im 7 ny form ol free from 2 Ae it should not be » ” a £0) CORDIN! acon taken to an office ora place erson shoule ‘dation it should be in a free : 4 from 2 police cell, army environment. arracks, etc: guardroom, in the presence Of the officer 5 1 i ecurity personne * Id be no security ging the conressicn. The conditions te at the time of recor ny form of undue influence. There shoul or magistra must be free from al The accused person must be cautioned about the consequences of +t be told that he is not being forced making the confession. He must to say anything but if he does so whatever he say will be recorded down and may be used in evidence against him. A confession be recorded dewn in the very words ofthe accused eae < must state in his own words, what he know and what ee with respect to the alleged incident. Where the accused are = not understand the language of court, then he must use ne mS ce he knows best and the confescion must be recorded it ee a on a translated into English which is the ee n case of transiation, both versions of t st be maintained by the recording officer. After recording the. state; who must certify to say. A ue it must be read back to the accu at is written down is what he or she mea After ihe statem : en sign the Satement ® i a read to the accused, he or ye magistrate Mb print i i (ce vith, this wan et Sign, tr i end ee ee ; this will lead torejection of the sae ee ’ the statement at the trial. Scanned with CamScanner annette Karungi Mutobingw2~ UM-MUK, Dip PDC LB Hts) MUK CONFESSIONS AGAINST A CO- ACCUSE! ‘A situation where two or more people have been charged jointly for a crime. e-of them makes a statement amounting to a confession is dealt with 657 of the Evidence Act. °°" $ i Under this section, where more’than one person are jointly: charged for the’: —sarne“offence and a-confession ismade by one ‘of such-persons, affecting—:- - fe een himself and seme other of such persons, if such 2 confession is proved, court will take into consideration such a confession as against such-other persons as well as against the person who made the confession. In practice . courts wil! only admit sucn confessions as evidence if they pass the-test. of. fully incriminating the imaker. This means that the -person making the confession must fully admit. his guilt to the crime. If the statement has the effect of shifting the guilt, to a co-accused, then it may not be taken into consideration. Once a statement has been proved to fully incriminate the maker, then it may be admitted into evidence against the maker and the co-accused. Case: R vs. Wandigombe and others 1941 vol. 8 EACA 33. In this case court pointed out among others that, it is unsafe to regard a confession of a co-accused as the basis ror convicting another accused * person unless the maker fully incriminates himself. Court further went on to observe that it cannot conceive a situation where evidence of a co-accused can be the sole evidence against a fellow accused. Confessions against a co- accused must be supported by some other independent evidence. That of law before they can form a basis a is, they require corroboration as a rul fof cofviction. Case: Karaya and others vs. R (1953) 20 EACA. 324, It was held among cthers that it is incorrect to regard a statement made by @ co-accused in an extra judicial statement as the basis for the case against usy, MIS co-accused, Further that, whenever there is confession of an accused Person against” coraeeused,” whats Nelited™ befdre “a” convi is’ sustained is some other independent evidence connecting the co-accused to the crime. 1 E arate In the case of Gopa and others vs. R (1953) 20 EACA, 318. . ' Scanned with CamScanner ———e fons) MUK confession can only be us “Annette Korung! Mutabiogwo =UM-MUR, Dip LP-1DC, U8 (H ag is of It was held among others that evidence ofa lending assurance to other evidence against the co-accused, Tha it evidence which falls short by a very narrow margin of the standard of py, necessary for a conviction. CONFESSIONS LEADING TO DISCOVERY: Under s.29 of the evidence Act, it is. provided ‘that: Where ANY fat e discovered in Consequence of information received ‘fron: any . aq : ~————person-whether: that information amounis -to-a-corifession OF. not, ba fact may be proved if it relates distinctly to a fact that has been dis ae What S.29 says is that a confession:may be useful in leading to ees fey te etal evidence, In effect, such a confeséion onan confessed to, °F Purposes of proving other crimes that are aa ADMIssrons: According tos. 1 i 6 of the evidence Act, an admission is a-statement,-oral or te 7 0} documenta: which «i _____made by ms oases any inference as to any fact issue and which Parties to a case, Admissions can be inferred fran written Or oral statemey if tH ies | tements 6) ‘the r from duct OF any or i the conduct oF any Of the parties An admission Means th; an alleged act he i) has conceded expressly or otherwise? Proceed dings, an admisce rons may either be formal or informél €dings either by way of 'ssion may be made before or during YF @ plea of guity or in the form of a confess Admission Sa f fans Mal proo} . ee Made for purposes of doing away we ed : te : NQs or Someone on his aie pe T Dehalf. { Aformar— . Scanned with CamScanner

    You might also like