Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The English Law on Confessions 259
was made of the voire dire. Vennard found that a voire dire took place in only 7%
of contested Crown Court cases, whereas Barnes and Webster reported a figure
of 11%. Overall, in only about 13% of contested cases in the Crown Court and
six per cent in the Magistrates’ Courts are the issues of statement unreliability
raised, either during the voire dire and/or the trial proper (Vennard, 1984).
How effective is the voire dire for excluding confession evidence? In the great
majority of cases the submission to exclude confession evidence fails. According
to Vennard’s (1984) findings, only about 15% of voire dire cases in the Crown
Courts succeed.
These studies are very out of date and the figures may not give an accurate
picture of the current situation.
ISSUES AFFECTING VULNERABLE DEFENDANTS
Psychological (Mental) Vulnerability
There is no mention of mental disorder, apart from ‘mental handicap’, in PACE.
However, in the Codes of Practice, mental disorder is discussed in relation to
the need for an ‘appropriate adult’:
The generic term ‘mental disorder’ is used throughout this code. ‘Mental disorder’
is defined in Section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 as ‘mental illness, arrested
or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder and any other disorder
or disability of mind’. It should be noted that ‘mental disorder’ is different from
‘mental handicap’ although the two are dealt with similarly throughout this code.
Where the custody officer has any doubt as to the mental state or capacity of a
person detained an appropriate adult should be called (Home Office, 1995, p. 29).
Section 77(1) of PACE deals with confessions obtained from persons with a
‘mental handicap’. It states that in such cases the court shall warn the jury
. . . that there is a special need for caution before convicting the accused in reliance
on the confession.
The warning is contingent on that:
(a) the case against the accused depends wholly or substantially on a confession
by him; and
(b) the court is satisfied—
(i) that he is mentally handicapped; and
(ii) that the confession was not made in the presence of an independent person.
Section 77(3) of the Act defines a person with ‘mental handicap’ as the one who
‘is in a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant
impairment of intelligence and social functioning’ (p. 73). PACE gives
greater protection to persons with mental handicap than the Judges’ Rules,
apparently as a result of the adverse publicity following the Confait case (see
Chapter 7; Bevan & Lidstone, 1985). No mention is made in the PACE Act about
a similar protection for the mentally ill, but this is covered in the accompanying