R v Mushtaq
Where a confession is admitted but the jury considers that it was or may have been obtained by oppression or in circumstances making it unreliable, the jury must disregard it.
Facts
Mr Mushtaq was charged with conspiracy to defraud, and the prosecution relied on a confession he had made during police interviews. He argued that the confession had been obtained by oppression. The judge ruled that it was admissible under section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but directed the jury that, even if they concluded that the confession had been obtained by oppression, they could still rely on it if they were sure it was true. He was convicted.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the direction was wrong, although the conviction was upheld. Lord Rodger said that the logic of section 76 is that a jury should not rely on a confession which it considers was or may have been obtained by oppression or in circumstances likely to render it unreliable, even if it believes the confession to be true. The jury must be directed that, if they consider that the confession was or may have been obtained in such a way, they must disregard it. This was required by the privilege against self incrimination and article 6 of the European Convention.
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.
