vs

WILLIAM McDOUGAL

Supreme Court
22nd January, 1982

Admissibility of confession by Defendant into evidence during a criminal trial - Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that confession was voluntarily made - Effect of non-observance of Judges Rules - Need for Police Officers present at time of confession to inform Defendant of his rights and to sign confession as witnesses.

J U D G M E N T

The issue before me is whether the confession is admissible.

The law on the matter is clear. The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the statement in question had been made voluntarily, i.e. by showing that it had not been obtained either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage excited or held out by a person in authority.

The standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden is on the Crown.

The "none-observance of the Judges Rules and Instructions may, and at times does, lead to the exclusion of an alleged confession; but ultimately all turns on the Judge's decision as to whether, breach or no breach, it has been shown to have been made voluntarily."

I am very grateful to Counsel for the Defence in bringing to my attention the judgment of Chief Justice Inniss of 8th November 1967 in the case of the The Queen v Bainton, Baptist & Estelle and the Instructions of both Chief Justices Inniss and Malone dated 1964 and during tenure of office of latter respectively.

I am satisfied that the Police failed to comply with the said Instructions in the case. Not only was the voluntary statement not signed by the two Police Officers present but it is not clear at all whether the accused was informed of his "rights" and of his right to get in touch with his solicitor. The evidence of the two Prosecution witnesses is contradictory on this point.

I am grateful to Counsel for the Crown for bringing to my attention the following authorities:-

Bardalez & Bardales - Belize Court of Appeal 1977
The Queen v Felix Nunez, Supreme Court 25 October 1977
The Queen v Enrique Malick, Supreme Court 10 October 1977
Prager - 56 C.A.R. 151
Archold 40th Ed. Para. 1388(e) & 5th Supplement.
The Queen v Sang (1979) 2 A.E.R. 1222
Cross on Evidence 4th Ed. P.278.

It is unnecessary for me to decide whether the defendant was in custody or not, because I am satisfied in my own mind that the Prosecution has failed to satisfy me that the confession was a voluntary one. They have failed to show that the confession was not as the result of oppressive conduct. I find the confession inadmissible.

Although not necessary for my decision, I find that the accused was in custody when he was taken into the C.I.B. Office.

The infringement of the Judges Rules and Administrative Instructions in this case fully support my decision that the confession has not been shown to me to have been a voluntary one.

----------OO----------