This section tests your ability to identify relevant statutory provisions and apply them to a specific scenario. Read the provisions from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and answer the question set.
Martin and Kirsty have been arrested on suspicion of burglary. They are taken to the local police station, where they are questioned by DC Bright and DC Sharp. Early in the interview, Martin begins to shake and sweat symptoms which DC Bright recognizes as drug withdrawal. He knows that Martin is a heroin addict and that he will need to get a fix within a few hours. To increase the pressure on Martin DC Bright conducts the interview extremely slow and two hours later, Martin is very agitated and distressed. At this point, Dc Bright offers to let Martin go home on bail if he confesses to the burglary and Martin agrees, signing a statement that he broke into the house in question.
In another interview room, Kirsty is being interviewed by DC Sharp. He positions his chair right next to her and screams at her over and over again that she must confess to the burglary. Kirsty is crying and upset but DC Sharp continues to shout at her, banging his fist on the table in front of her. After an hour of this treatment, Kirsty signs a confession.

Assess the possibility of excluding the confession.

Introduction
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ("PACE 1984") is an act designed to protect the public from unfair treatment and to allow Police Officers in England and Wales to pursue the course of justice and to reduce crime. Within the act there are rules to which all police officers must conform and a guide for the public to protect against unfairly obtained evidence. In this essay are two suspects who have against them a signed confession. This essay will assess the relevant sections of the act and assess the possibility of the evidence being excluded.
The question focuses on two suspects who have signed a confession. The following paragraphs will discuss the possibility of the evidence being excluded by examining the relevant sections of PACE 1984.

The two suspects Kirsty and Martin were brought into the station on suspicion of burglary. The PACE 1984 Codes of Practice are relevant in building an argument against the reliability of the confessions. The initial stage of Code C of the Code of Practice 3.1 states that all custody officers bringing a person into custody must ensure that the detainee has the right to let someone know that they have been arrested, and most importantly they must have the right to consult in private with a solicitor.

Martin v DC Bright.
The general rule of admissibility of confession is that it is admissible against the person who made it s76 (1). The exception to that general rule is found in s76 (2) (a) and 76 (2) (b).
Martin was interviewed by DC Bright. There are several circumstances which might be considered to contribute to unfairness under s78 PACE 1984, and which might also contribute to the confession being judged unreliable within the meaning of s76 (2) (b), PACE 1984. It appears from the scenario that DC Bright and Sharp may have failed to do the following:
During the course of the interview the suspect (Martin) began to shake and sweat displaying symptoms which is recognised by DC Bright as possible drug withdrawal. I believe that it is safe to assume that the interviewee (DC Bright) had no medical background and is therefore unable to make a diagnosis of the suspect symptoms, the suspect could have been suffering from something more fatal like a heart attack or that he could have been epileptic. According to the PACE Code of Practice C 3.6 DC Bright should have at this point conducted a risk assessment to ensure that the suspect was not a danger to himself or others around him. Since DC Bright suspected and it was evident from the physical signs such as shaking and sweating that the suspect the suspect was possibly intoxicated with drugs or unwell for other reasons, a health care professional should have been summoned (paragraph 3.10).
The case of R v Walker [1998] Crim LR 211 is relevant here. In this case a prostitute in custody had informed the police that she was a heroin addict and she had obtained medication to alleviate her withdrawal symptoms. She made an incriminating statement which she later did not want to be admitted before the court. She said that she had taken some heroin and was therefore under the influence of the drugs while making her statement. There was evidence given by a medical expert that she also suffered from a psychiatric disorder which would was made worse by drug use and therefore affected the reliability of her confession. The Court of Appeal held that s76 (2) (b) applied because the defendant's mental state had to be taken into account and could render her confession unreliable. It would be useful to have Martin assessed to determine whether he was under the influence of drugs and what effect that could have on the reliability of his confession.
When the suspect go agitated and distressed DC Bright offered to let him go providing he would confess to the crime. He agreed and signed the confession. A confession is a formal acknowledgement of a crime. S 82 (1) of PACE 1984 defines it as “any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it, whether made to someone in authority or not, whether made in words or otherwise.” The general rule of admissibility of confession is that it is admissible against the person who made it s76 (1). The exception to that general rule is found in s76 (2) (a) and 76 (2) (b) which states “if in any proceeding the prosecution purposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person, it is represented to the court that it was or may have been obtained by oppression or anything said or done at the time to make the confession unreliable.” The case R v Fulling (1987) 85 Cr. App. 136 [1987] Q.B 426 provides a list of situation which would make a confession unreliable, the list covers; confession obtained as a result of inducement for instance a promise of bail for a confession, such which occurred between Martin and DC Bright, hostile or aggressive questioning, or failure to comply with the rules set out in the Code of Practice.

DC Sharp v Kirsty
Kirsty was interviewed by DC Sharp. It is essential to note that DC Sharp, like DC Bright did not allow the suspect the option of legal aid. Unlike Martin, Kirsty did not require medical attention.
While interviewing the suspect he exerted his authority by positioning his chair next to Kirsty, all the while pounding his fist on the table and shouting that she must confess. Under s 76 (8) of PACE 1984 oppression includes “torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use of violent threats.” Lord Lane C. J in R v Fulling (1987) 85 Cr. App. 136 [1987] Q.B 426 used the definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary to broaden what was placed in the act. It was described as “the exercise of authority in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner, unjust or cruel treatment of a subject. It is my opinion that this definition is suited to DC Sharps behaviour because it related directly to the way he treated the suspect. It is important to elaborate that the 76 (2) (a) of PACE outlines that confession obtained as a result of oppression is not admissible in court.

Conclusion
Both officers adopted different methods of obtaining confessions from the suspects. With regard to Kristy’s case, her confession should be excluded because firstly she was not allowed the right to consult with a legal representative, so DC Sharp was in breach of the Code of Practice C and s 76 (2) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Although Martin’s confession was not obtained by oppressive means, DC Bright was still in breach of the Code of Conduct C and s 76(2) (b) of PACE. Like DC Sharp he failed to provide legal aid, failed to provide health care and induced the suspect into confessing.

Fenwick, H. Fenwick, P. Phillipson, G, 2003, Text, Cases & Material on Public Law and Human Rights, London, Routledge Cavendish