I DID IT! – The Law on Confessions in Trinidad and Tobago
Last month, my colleague Jeron Paul explored the topic of hearsay evidence, an out-of-court statement relied upon for its truth at trial. While hearsay is usually inadmissible, there are exceptions, one of which is when an accused person makes a confession.
What is a Confession?
A confession is a statement made by a person that admits to their own wrongdoing or involvement in a crime. In other words, it’s when someone says something that could be used as evidence of their guilt.
Importantly, the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago gives every individual the right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves. This is part of the fundamental rule against self-incrimination. Despite this, people often make statements to the police that end up being used against them as confession evidence.
Admissibility of Confession Evidence at Trial
Confession evidence is not automatically admitted into a trial. One key requirement, based on common law, is that the confession must be voluntary in order to be admissible.
Under the Constitution, everyone has rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to speak with a lawyer if they are in police custody. These rights help protect people from being forced or pressured into saying something against themselves. If someone gives a confession, the court must decide whether it was made voluntarily. A confession that was forced, threatened, or obtained in unfair circumstances can be excluded as evidence at trial. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the confession was given voluntarily.
Voir Dire
When an accused person challenges the use of their confession, the court holds what is known as a voir dire (a trial within a trial). During this process, the judge (without the jury present) hears evidence to decide whether the confession was obtained properly. However, there must be grounds on which the accused is challenging the confession such as:
- The accused person was subject to oppression at the time of the statement;
- The accused person was tricked into giving the confession;
- There was a breach of the accused person’s constitutional rights, for example denial of legal counsel;
- There was a breach of the Judges’ Rules, for example, the accused person was not cautioned or they were improperly cautioned prior to the giving of the statement;
- The accused person was not fit to be interviewed, for example, if the person suffered from a mental illness or was a minor and questioned in the absence of an appropriate adult.
Oppression
Oppression occurs when the conduct of a person in authority, such as a police officer, overpowers or “saps” the free will of the accused. This can include physical abuse, threats, intimidation, or harsh and degrading treatment.
The court examines the nature and extent of the conduct and considers the physical and mental condition of the accused. For example, if someone is beaten, denied food, rest, or medical treatment, or subjected to prolonged or aggressive interrogation, the resulting confession may be deemed involuntary and excluded from evidence.
Trickery
A confession can also be challenged if it was obtained through deception or manipulation. Even without physical force, certain tactics can mislead or pressure an accused person into confessing. Examples include:
- Making false promises of leniency, for instance, “If you tell us who is the boss, we’ll let you go.”
- Pretending to have evidence that doesn’t exist.
- Falsely claiming that another suspect has already confessed.
These forms of psychological pressure can undermine the fairness of the process.
Constitutional Rights/Judges’ Rules
Before an accused person makes any statement, they should be clearly cautioned about their rights, including the right to remain silent and to seek legal advice. A breach of the Judges’ Rules, for instance, failing to properly caution the accused, or a violation of constitutional rights does not automatically make a confession inadmissible. However, the judge has the discretion to exclude the statement if the breach was serious enough to make its admission unfair.
Directions to Jury
If the confession is accepted as evidence, the jury (or judge in judge alone trials) must be guided on how much importance to give it. They should consider all the circumstances under which it was made such as, any delay before it was recorded, the condition of the accused, whether their rights were respected, how clear the confession was and so on. The judge must also warn that the confession should only be relied upon if it is believed to have been made voluntarily.
Conclusion
Confession evidence can be one of the most compelling forms of proof in a criminal trial, after all, it often comes directly from the accused’s own mouth. But with that power comes responsibility. The courts in Trinidad and Tobago take great care to ensure that confessions are obtained fairly, voluntarily, and in full respect of the accused’s constitutional rights. The legal safeguards around confessions are not about protecting the guilty, but about protecting the integrity of the justice system itself. Every person, regardless of the accusation, deserves a fair trial, and that fairness begins with the words, “You have the right to remain silent.”
Submitted by: Adaphia Trancoso-Ribeiro
Public Defender II Senior
Public Defenders’ Department
Legal Aid and Advisory Authority,
23 Stanmore Avenue, Port of Spain.
Contact: 638-5222
Email: [email protected]
Website: laaa.org.tt