R v Fulling
Oppression in section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 bears its ordinary meaning of the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, harsh or wrongful manner, and normally involves impropriety by the interrogator.
Facts
Ms Fulling was arrested on suspicion of obtaining property by deception. She refused to answer questions for some time, but eventually confessed after a police officer told her that her lover had been having an affair with another woman, who was in the next cell. She said that this distressed her so much that she confessed in order to get out of the police station. She argued that the confession had been obtained by oppression and should be excluded under section 76(2)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the confession was admissible. Lord Lane CJ said that the word oppression in section 76(2)(a) should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning, the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, harsh, or wrongful manner, unjust or cruel treatment of subjects or inferiors, or the imposition of unreasonable or unjust burdens. It would be hard to envisage any oppression which did not entail some impropriety on the part of the interrogator. What the police officer had said, even if true, did not amount to oppression, so the confession was properly admitted.
Related cases on silence, confessions and improperly obtained evidence
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2005] UKHL 71, [2006] 2 AC 221
- Condron v United Kingdom (2001) 31 EHRR 1
- Gäfgen v Germany (2011) 52 EHRR 1
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- R v Argent [1997] 2 Cr App R 27
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v Keenan [1990] 2 QB 54
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
