R v Keenan
Significant and substantial breaches of the codes of practice governing police interviews, such as failing to make a contemporaneous record, may justify the exclusion of the evidence under section 78.
Facts
Mr Keenan was arrested and found to have a weapon in his car. The prosecution relied on statements which he was alleged to have made to the police, admitting knowledge of the weapon, but the police had not made a contemporaneous record of the conversation, as required by Code C of the codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, nor shown him the record to sign. He denied making the statements. The judge admitted the evidence, and he was convicted.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Hodgson J said that the purpose of the provisions in the codes requiring the recording of interviews was to ensure that the defendant's alleged admissions were accurately recorded, and to prevent the fabrication of evidence. Where there have been significant and substantial breaches of those provisions, evidence obtained in breach will frequently be excluded under section 78, because its admission would make the trial unfair, by putting the defendant in the position of having to give evidence to challenge the police account. The breaches here were significant and substantial.
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 Fulling [1987] QB 426
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
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.
