R v Mason
A confession obtained after the police falsely told the suspect and his solicitor that his fingerprints had been found at the scene was excluded under section 78 as unfair.
Facts
Mr Mason was arrested on suspicion of arson. The police had no evidence against him, but they falsely told him and his solicitor that his fingerprint had been found on a piece of glass from a bottle used to start the fire. On the solicitor's advice, he then confessed. He was convicted, and appealed, arguing that the confession should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. Watkins LJ said that the police had practised a deceit not only on the defendant but also on his solicitor, whose duty was to advise his client on the basis of the evidence, and that the trial judge had failed to take this into account in exercising his discretion under section 78. Had he done so, he would have been bound to exclude the confession, because its admission had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to have been 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 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.
