Evidence Law: Admissions & Confessions

Cheatsheet Content

Section 17 – Admissions / Confessions S. 17(1) Admission Definition A statement (oral/documentary) suggesting any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact . Made by any of the persons and under the circumstances mentioned in the Ordinance. S. 17(2) Confession Definition An admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence . States or suggests the inference that he committed that offence . Admissibility of Admissions Sec 17-22, Sec 31: Deal with informal admissions (first exception to hearsay rule). No particular form is required; must suggest an inference to a fact in issue/relevant fact. Sec 18(1): Admission by a party in a representative capacity (relevant only if made in that capacity). Sec 18(2): Admission by an expressly/impliedly authorized agent. Sec 18(3): By a person with proprietary or pecuniary interest in subject matter (e.g., partner). Sec 18(3)(b): By a person from whom interest was derived. Sec 19: By persons whose position or liability must be proved as against a party to the suit. Sec 20: By persons expressly referred to by the party to suit. Sec 21: Proof of admissions against the person who makes them or his representative in interest. Sec 22: When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant. Judge's Duty (Admissions) Decide if it's an admission under Sec 17(1). Check if made by persons in S. 18-20 and under stated circumstances. Admit oral submissions on document contents only as per Sec 22. Not admit admissions made "without prejudice" (Sec 23). Observe Sec 31 rule: not conclusive but may estop the maker. Key Cases on Admissions/Confessions Sudu Aiya Vs. AG 2005 (1) SLR 358 Accomplice evidence corroborated by witness testimony and confessions (relevant under Sec 17 & 21). Gamini Sugathasena Vs. State 1988 (2) SLR 405 Test for Confession (Sec 17(2) & 25): Objective test – whether a reasonable person reading the statement at the time and in the circumstances would infer the accused committed the offence. Statement must be looked at as a whole and on its own terms , without reference to extrinsic facts. Accused's intention to confess is irrelevant if the facts suggest guilt. Anandagoda Vs Queen 64 NLR 73 Confirmed the objective test for confession under Sec 17(2) and Sec 25. A statement denying guilt but containing relevant facts (e.g., mistress, nuisance, passing body after hiring car) can amount to an admission. Karunarathne Vs. State 78 NLR 413 False statements cannot be admissions under Sec 17. Prosecution can rely on part of a statement, but the accused can elicit full statement for context. Queen Vs. Wilegoda, 60 NLR 246 Prosecution can rely on the fact that a statement was made (under S. 8, subsequent conduct) even if its truth is not relied upon (to avoid hearsay rule under S. 17). Decision limited to cases where prosecution leads evidence of a statement as an admission under S. 17. Confessions – Sec 24 – 31 Sec 25 - Confessions to Police/Officers Sec 25(1): No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. Sec 25(2): No confession made to a forest officer / an excise officer under respective acts is admissible. Duty of Courts – Confessions Voluntariness: Determine if confession was voluntary (voir dire inquiry). Burden of Proof: Accused not bound to prove inducement/threat/promise. Prosecution must show absence of invalidating circumstances (S. 24) Beyond Reasonable Doubt . 'Appear' indicates a low standard of proof. Inducement/threat/promise must refer to the charge against the accused. Must proceed from a person in authority or with their sanction. Sufficient if it appears reasonable to the accused that they would gain advantage or avoid evil. Dulip Vs. AG 2021 3 SLR 412 Reiterated Sec 25(1) prohibition against confessions to police officers. Under proviso to Sec 110(3) CrPC, accused's statement can contradict earlier one, but if it suggests guilt, it falls under Sec 25 prohibition. Thiyalage Nishantha V AG CA No. 208/2010 Test for Confession: Whether words of admission expressly/substantially admit guilt or inferentially admit guilt. Evidence leading to inference of confession to police officer is also inadmissible. Two Tests for Reliance on Confession (Nagamani Theivendran v AG): Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary. If so, whether it is true and trustworthy (compare with other evidence). Presumption: A person would not admit against interest unless true. Driver Gune v The Republic of Sri Lanka [2009] 2 Sri LR 383 A "confession" implies direct deductibility of guilt, not just acts/circumstances that might invoke guilt. Statement to police (Sec 122(3) CrPC) can be used to contradict accused, if not a confession under Sec 25. Ranjith Fonseka v Attorney-General [1990] 2 Sri LR 50 SC Handing over a knife was not a "statement" and thus not a confession. A gesture is not necessarily a statement implying guilt. A confession must state or suggest the inference of guilt. Prejudicial evidence is not necessarily a confession. Section 26 – Custodial Confessions A confession made by a person in custody of a police officer is inadmissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate . Applies similarly to confessions made to a Forest Officer / Excise Officer. Section 27 – Discovery Statements (How much of information received from accused may be proved) Sec 27(1) Proviso: When a fact is discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody, so much of such information (whether it amounts to a confession or not) that relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. Sec 27(2): Subsection (1) applies similarly to information from a person accused under Forest / Excise Ordinance. Rules Court Should Observe (Sec 27) Information must be from an accused person, not forced. Fact must be deposed to as discovered in consequence of such information (causal connection). Statements by multiple accused leading to discovery are relevant. Accused must be in police custody when statement made. Clear nexus between information and subsequent recovery of relevant fact. Sever relevant portion of statement, leaving out prejudicial words. Section relates to place from which object is produced & accused's knowledge. Discovery of witness is NOT discovery of a fact. Written record must be produced; oral evidence inadmissible. In a joint trial, recovery by one accused cannot be used against another. Rathnapala vs Attorney-General [2021] 3 Sri LR 313 Illegally obtained evidence (e.g., prolonged custody) not automatically inadmissible. Test: weigh prejudicial effect against probative value. Evidence of body recovery under Sec 27 can be admitted if probative value outweighs prejudicial effect. Narayana Swami vs Emperor, A.I.R 1939 Privy Council 47 Sec 27 is a proviso to Sec 26. "Person accused of any offence" (S. 25 & 27) is descriptive, not a condition for applicability. Principle: If discovery assures truth, tainted confessional/other statements (in custody) are provable to the extent they distinctly relate to the discovered fact. Samson Atygala vs Attorney General 1986 1 SLR 390 "Police custody" (Sec 27) does not require formal arrest; includes police surveillance and restriction of movement. The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) 61 Crim L.J 1504 Sec 27 is part of sections on relevancy of admissions by accused. Sec 24-30 deal with admissibility of confessions. Ban under Sec 24 (inducement/threat/promise) and Sec 25 (to police officer) applies whether accused was in custody or not. "Accused person" (S. 24) and "person accused of any offence" (S. 25) have same connotation. Somaratne Rajapakse v Attorney-General [2010] 2 Sri LR 113 SC Military Police Officers included in "Police Officer" definition (Sec 25) due to their powers, custody conditions, and inaccessibility to lawyers. Confessions to them are inadmissible. Sec 27 limitation: Only facts distinctly related to discovery are admissible. Clear nexus required between information and discovery. Portion of statement leading to discovery can be admitted, other parts deleted. De Saram v The Republic [2002] 1 Sri LR 288 SC Admissibility under Sec 27(1) based on accused's knowledge of burial site, not confession of crime. Other Relevant Sections Sec 28: Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement/threat/promise is relevant. Sec 29: Confession otherwise relevant not become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy. Sec 30: Confession made by one of several persons tried jointly for the same offence. Key Cases on Sec 30 The King vs Ferdinands 45 NLR 450 Evidence given by an accused incriminating himself and a co-accused is admissible against the co-accused. The King vs Goonawardena 44 NLR 189 Admissible confession made by accused is not inadmissible merely because it was elicited by leading questions. Vivekananthan vs Selvaratnam 79(1) NLR 337 Extra-judicial confession of an accused cannot be used against co-accused and is excluded by Sec 30. The Queen vs Buddharakkita Thero 63 NLR 43 Confession provable under Sec 30 should not be excluded due to prejudice to co-accused in conspiracy charge. The King vs Punchi Banda 47 NLR 203 In indictable offence, accused's statement to magistrate is relevant against co-accused if former reaffirms it at trial. Section 31 – Effect of Admissions Admissions are not conclusive proof but may estop the maker.