Key Facts
- •The appellant was convicted of multiple historic sexual offences against his step-daughter.
- •The complainant made a police report in August 2021, detailing years of abuse.
- •The prosecution relied on the complainant's testimony, witness accounts corroborating the abuse, and recorded phone conversations.
- •In a recorded conversation, the appellant admitted to physically and sexually abusing the complainant.
- •The defence argued the confession was inadmissible under section 76(2)(b) of PACE, claiming it was obtained due to duress from his wife and the complainant's threats.
- •The trial judge ruled the confession admissible after a voir dire.
Legal Principles
Section 76(2)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) dictates that a confession obtained in consequence of anything said or done likely to render it unreliable should be inadmissible unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't so obtained.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
The test under section 76(2)(b) PACE is objective and hypothetical, focusing on whether anything said or done was likely to render *any* confession unreliable, not just the specific confession given.
Re: Proulx [2001] 1 All ER 57
A confession is inadmissible if obtained due to a plain inducement to confess, making any confession likely unreliable.
R v Roberts [2011] EWCA Crim 2974
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies, prohibiting the publication of information that identifies the victim of a sexual offence unless waived or lifted.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The judge correctly applied the section 76(2)(b) PACE test. The court found that the appellant's confession, while potentially influenced by his wife's distress, was not obtained through oppression, threat, or inducement likely to render it unreliable. Even without the confession, the other evidence strongly supported the conviction.