Factual and Procedural Background
On 18th December 1978, at the Chester Crown Court before Judge Bristow, the Appellant, then aged 15, was convicted of attempted murder and attempted buggery arising from a brutal assault on a nine-year-old boy ("the Victim"). The Appellant was sentenced to detention for life and an additional two-year concurrent detention for the other offence. Applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were initially refused and dismissed by the Full Court in 1981. In 1996, the Secretary of State declined to refer the case to the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The Appellant was released in March 2003 after serving over 24 years. The present appeal arises from a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2004, treated as an appeal under the 1968 Act.
The charges stemmed from an attack on 25th June 1978, when the Victim was accosted near a canal in Great Sankey, threatened with a knife, taken to a disused sewage works, sexually assaulted, stabbed, and left concealed under heavy bricks. The Victim was found alive but severely injured approximately 28 hours later.
The Appellant lived near the scene and was on home leave from a secure approved school at the time. His family included two older brothers living nearby. The local press published descriptions of the assailant, including hair characteristics, which were relevant given evidence at trial about the Appellant requesting haircuts shortly after the attack.
The Appellant was interviewed multiple times by police, initially denying involvement and providing varying accounts of his whereabouts. His brothers and two other youths made confessions but later retracted them. On 21st July 1978, the Appellant was interviewed at the approved school without legal advice or a solicitor present. The interview lasted over four hours, resulting in oral admissions and a written confession, which were central to the Crown's case. No forensic or identification evidence linked the Appellant to the crime.
At trial, the defence sought to exclude the confession on grounds of voluntariness, alleging threats and improper pressure relating to a prior 1976 incident. The trial judge admitted the confession, preferring police evidence over the Appellant's account. The written confession was said by police officers to have been written by the Appellant without prompting, a fact later challenged by linguistic evidence indicating significant police involvement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Appellant's oral and written admissions were obtained in circumstances likely to render them unreliable and thus should have been excluded from evidence.
- Whether the absence of informing the Appellant of his right to legal advice and the absence of an appropriate adult during the interview breached applicable rules and affected the safety of the convictions.
- Whether the lengthy duration and conditions of the interview, combined with references to further charges, constituted oppression or improper pressure under the law.
- Whether extrinsic evidence supporting the truth of the confession could render the confession admissible despite breaches of procedural safeguards.
- The applicability of present-day standards of fairness and legal principles to a conviction obtained prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The admissions were obtained in circumstances likely to render them unreliable due to prolonged interrogation, absence of legal advice, and inappropriate adult presence.
- The interview breached the Judges Rules and Administrative Directions then in force, including failure to inform the Appellant of his right to consult a solicitor and conducting the interview at the approved school rather than a police station.
- The adult present at the interview was not an appropriate adult but more akin to a prison officer, providing inadequate support.
- The police officers were not truthful about the Appellant writing the confession statement without assistance, undermining the credibility of their entire account.
- Expert evidence on false confessions and the vulnerability of juvenile suspects supported the unreliability of the admissions.
- Without the admissions, there was no prima facie case, making the convictions unsafe.
Crown's Arguments
- The Crown did not dispute the legal principles advanced by the Appellant but adopted a neutral stance on the safety of the convictions.
- The Crown conceded police involvement in wording the written confession, breaching Rule IV(b) of the Judges Rules, but denied similar involvement in oral admissions.
- The adult present at the interview could be regarded as close to an appropriate adult under contemporary standards.
- The Appellant was detained and thus in custody, but the Crown argued that failure to inform him of the right to legal advice was not raised at trial and was not a breach under the rules then applicable.
- Reliability of the confession could be supported by extrinsic evidence such as opportunity, fitting the description, hair cut evidence, and a statement by the Appellant's mother.
- The court should assess the safety of the convictions in light of all evidence, including these factors.
- The Crown resisted the admission of expert evidence on false confessions, arguing it did not address matters beyond a jury’s experience.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Middleton [1974] 2 All ER 1190 |
Common law discretion to exclude voluntary confessions if obtained unfairly |
Referenced to explain the then law on admissibility of confessions before PACE |
| Roberts (unreported, 19th March 1998) |
Consideration of present-day standards on fairness and false confessions |
Supporting the Appellant’s argument for assessing reliability by current standards |
| Abid Hussain [2005] EWCA Crim 31 |
Assessment of breaches of rules at trial by present-day standards; vulnerability of juvenile offenders |
Used to support the need to consider fairness and vulnerability of juveniles in assessing confession reliability |
| O'Brien, Hall and Sherwood [2000] Crim LR 676 |
Admissibility of expert evidence on confession reliability and abnormal disorders |
Distinguished by the court; expert evidence admissible on false confessions even without abnormal disorder |
| Bentley [2001] 2 Cr App R 307 |
Judging safety of conviction by present-day standards of fairness |
Confirmed the court’s approach to assess safety using current fairness standards |
| Ashley King [2000] 2 Cr App R 391 |
Consideration of denial of rights under rules in force at the time in assessing safety |
Reinforced focus on safety of conviction considering procedural protections |
| Richardson [2004] EWCA Crim 1984 |
Overriding issue is safety of conviction judged by present standards, including PACE sections 76 and 58 |
Emphasized relevance of present-day standards and statutory provisions in safety assessment |
| Samuel (1988) 1 QB 615 |
Right to legal advice is fundamental and breach may require exclusion of confession |
Supported the court’s view on necessity of advising juveniles of legal rights |
| Cox [1991] Crim LR 276 |
Truth of confession is not determinative of admissibility under section 76(2) of PACE |
Used to reject Crown’s argument that extrinsic evidence of truth overcomes reliability issues |
| Kenny [1994] Crim LR 284 |
Same principle as Cox regarding confession admissibility and truth |
Reinforced statutory interpretation that reliability, not truth, governs admissibility |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by affirming the established principle that the safety of the conviction must be judged by present-day standards of fairness, even when the conviction dates back many years. This includes applying current legal principles to the investigatory process and trial conduct, while applying the substantive criminal law as it was at the time of trial.
The court reviewed the applicable rules in force at the time, notably the Judges Rules and Administrative Directions, which provided protections for suspects including the right to consult a solicitor and the presence of an appropriate adult during interviews of juveniles. It was found that these rules were breached in multiple respects: the Appellant was not informed of his right to legal advice; the interview was conducted at the approved school rather than a police station; no parent or guardian was present, and the adult present was not an appropriate adult in the proper sense; and the interview lasted over three hours without recorded breaks.
The court gave considerable weight to the linguistic evidence indicating significant police involvement in drafting the written confession, contradicting sworn police testimony that the Appellant wrote it unassisted. This undermined the credibility of the police officers and cast doubt on the reliability of both the written confession and the preceding oral admissions.
Expert evidence on false confessions was admitted and accepted, explaining how fatigue, vulnerability due to youth, and sustained interrogation pressure can lead to coerced compliant confessions that are unreliable. The court found that the circumstances of the Appellant’s interview fit this profile.
The court rejected the Crown’s argument that extrinsic evidence supporting the truth of the confession could render it admissible, emphasizing that the statutory test under section 76(2) of PACE focuses on reliability, not truth. The presence of circumstantial evidence was insufficient to cure the unreliability caused by procedural breaches and coercion.
Considering all factors, including the absence of forensic or identification evidence and the centrality of the admissions to the Crown’s case, the court concluded that the admissions should not have been admitted and that the convictions were unsafe.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED the appeal and QUASHED the Appellant's convictions for attempted murder and attempted buggery.
The direct effect of this decision is the overturning of the convictions after more than two decades. The court emphasized that the decision was based on the unreliability of the admissions due to breaches of procedural safeguards and the vulnerability of the juvenile Appellant. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the application of present-day fairness standards to historical convictions. The ruling underscores the importance of proper safeguards during police interviews, particularly for juveniles, and the necessity of assessing the reliability of confessions in light of those safeguards.