Law Review, has called for a wide-ranging inquiry into every aspect of our criminal procedure.
Verbal Admissions
One of our foremost concerns has always been the lack of effective control over police interrogation, and the unprofitable battles over the reliability of alleged admissions that are a feature of so many criminal trials. The only step taken to date is the appointment of a Home Office Working Party to consider the feasibility of a pilot scheme of tape- recording police interviews. A consultative document recently issued by the Working Party indicates, by the timidity of its approach, that the problem will be with us for many years to come. No active consideration is being given to the JUSTICE proposals that verbal admissions should not be admissible in evidence unless confirmed in the presence of a magistrate or by some other reliable means.
Meanwhile the Court of Appeal seems powerless to check any abuses. Our own view was well reflected in the words of a Lord Justice which we quoted in last year's Annual Report, "In our judgment something should be done, as quickly as possible, to make evidence about oral state- ments difficult either to challenge or concoct."
We recently assisted in an appeal in a case where, after two men had been charged and assurances had been given to their solicitors that no admissions had been made and that they would not be interviewed again except in the presence of their solicitors, the prosecution produced full admissions alleged to have been made at later interviews of which the solicitors were unaware. Both of the men agreed they had been visited by the police in their cells, but maintained that they had refused to say anything. There was also considerable doubt as to whether the questioning conformed to the Judges' Rules. But after a full day's legal argument, the trial judge ruled that, despite any assurances which had been given to the defence, the police accounts of the interviews were admissible, and both men were convicted.
In the case of one of the men, leave was sought on appeal to call a handwriting expert who had certified that the police officer could not have written contemporary notes of the interview in the time recorded in his notebook, but the Court declined to hear him on the grounds that this could have been tested at the trial and that it was not best evidence. In the course of the argument on admissibility the presiding judge appeared to lament the fact that there was no "Dirty Tricks Act" and implied that the trial judge had been naive, but he made no criticism of the police when he came to give judgment.
After Devlin
The reactions of the authorities to the Devlin Report have so far been disappointing. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in R. v. Turnbull and others laid down guidelines which, up to a point, closely follow the Devlin Committee's recommendations.
It directs judges to point out to the jury all the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the evidence of identification, and to withdraw from the
12
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.