2 -
where somebody is not fluent. We have looked at all these statements and we see nothing in them which leads us to doubt the voluntariness of the statements from the inherent qualities of the statements.
Then it is said that all the detectives who were charged with
the responsibility for taking statements from these Appellants were in fact "instructed to take statements". All the Appellants were at that time under arrest. They had not in fact been charged and it seems doubtful
whether there was evidence which would have justified a charge at that
stage. It appears that what happened was the police had their suspicions
and had arrested them on suspicion. The learned judge commented on the
fact that there had been a breach of the Judges' Rules and we understand
that to mean that the Appellants had been questioned by the police, and asked to make statements, without their having first been cautioned.
This was wrong.
Nevertheless the learned judge was satisfied that the
Appellants were not in any way induced to make a statement by force or
threats. The Accused themselves alleged that they were actually treated
with violence and that, of course, was considered by the judge.
When a
police officer says that he was "instructed to take a statement" it may
well be that he means that he was instructed to ask the witness whether
he is prepared to make a statement and we are not necessarily to interpret
those words as meaning that a statement is. to be obtained at all costs.
In our view there is nothing to suggest that the police might have used
any form of violence other than that alleged by the Appellants, which
allegations were manifestly rejected by the judge. Attention is drawn to marks on the body of the third Appellant, which it is said are consistent
with his story. That is true but those rarks are not entirely inconsistent
with the evidence of the prosecution. Those injuries may have been obtained
in a number of ways: they could have been obtained in the affray which was
the subject of the charge: they could have been self-inflicted. It is not
for us at this stage to decide how the Accused came by these injuries.
The matter was before the judge and it was for him to decide. He, no
doubt, had regard to the fact that, whereas there were allegations of an
assault on the chest and there were marks on the chest, there was also
an allegation of an assault on the back and there were no marks of any
kind on the back, although the same weapon is said to have been used,
namely a stone.
There is then also the complaint that the third Appellant was
confronted by the second Appellant and by the allegations which had been
Page 150Page 151