Anton Bastian v The King (Bahamas)
[2024] UKPC 14
Vinson Ariste v The King (Bahamas)
31 May 2023
[2023] UKPC 18
Privy Council
A man was convicted of robbery based on a confession he says was forced. The judge didn't explain why he let the confession be used as evidence, and there were signs the man was beaten by the police. A higher court decided the conviction was wrong and let the man go free after more than 12 years in prison.
Key Facts
- •Vinson Ariste was arrested on July 21, 2010, and confessed to several offences, including the armed robbery of Andrea Donaldson, during police interviews between July 22 and 25, 2010.
- •The interviews were not recorded, and Ariste alleged his confession was coerced through beatings and suffocation.
- •Ariste had no legal representation during his detention or trial.
- •Medical evidence showed injuries consistent with Ariste's claims of police brutality.
- •The trial judge, Turner J, admitted the confession without providing written reasons.
- •The Court of Appeal dismissed Ariste's appeal, stating the judge was correct in admitting the confession.
- •In a subsequent trial for a different robbery, Isaacs J ruled a confession by Ariste inadmissible due to evidence of police coercion.
Legal Principles
Appeal against criminal conviction
Section 13(1) of the Court of Appeal Act 2006
Admissibility of confessions
Section 20 of the Evidence Act 1996
Failure to consider relevant evidence constitutes an error justifying appellate court intervention
Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed.
The trial judge's admission of the confession was an incorrect decision on a question of law or fact (Section 13(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal Act 2006). The confession was unreliable due to lack of legal representation, absence of recorded evidence, inconsistencies in medical evidence and the inherent improbability of the confession itself. Furthermore, the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory (Section 13(1)(a)), considering additional factors like the lack of legal representation at trial, omission of a good character direction, and a contrasting decision in a subsequent trial.