CONFESSIONS: with reference to decided case-law.

Issue: What amounts to a Confession?

The law of confessions in Malaysia is based on common law principle. A confession cannot be adduced unless it is made “voluntarily”.  The prosecution must prove this requirement beyond reasonable doubt. By virtue of section 17 (2) of the Evidence Act 1950, confession is defined as an admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that offence.

Anandagoda v The Queen [1962] MLJ 289 PC

The appellant was charged with murder by running over the deceased with a motor car, his statements considered by themselves, contained no admission that he was driving the car in question or that if he was driving it he ran over the deceased deliberately.

The appropriate test in deciding whether a particular statement is confession is as follows:-

a) whether the words of admission in the context expressly or substantially admit guilt

or

b) do they taken together in the context inferentially admit guilt

Lemanit v PP [1965] 2 MLJ 26

In this case, the appellant was arrested on 1 June 1964 when he called at the immigration depot and he subsequently made a statement on 5 June 1964 to a Magistrate, Mr Tay Soo Tee.

The Magistrate stated that: “I inform the accused that I am in no position to help him with respect to his desire to stay in Singapore.”

Q. Knowing that I (the magistrate) can’t help you to stay in Singapore do you still wish to make your statement voluntarily.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that all you wish to say?

A. Yes.

Mr Karpal Singh submitted on behalf of the appellant that the magistrate was not satisfied that the statement was voluntary, that it was not a confession and that it should not have been recorded. He further submitted that the inducement had been offered to the appellant which rendered it irrelevant because the magistrate told him that he could not help him to stay in Singapore when the appellant expressed a desire that he should do so as otherwise he would be shot on his return to Indonesia.

The learned trial judge admitted this statement as a confession after hearing evidence on an objection raised by the appellant that it was not voluntarily made. During the recording of his confession, which the magistrate stated he had reason to believe was voluntary made, the appellant asked him to allow him to stay in Singapore. The magistrate very properly told him he could not help him in the matter at all. The courts therefore, of the opinion that the complaint directed against the admission of the statement as a confession has no validity.

For international cases especially cases from United Kingdom, reference can be made through this link, http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/investigation/witness-admissibility.htm.