The admissibility of extra-judicial confessions: a comparative study

Abstract

Undoubtedly, one of the most contentious areas of law in England, Canada and the United States is, and has been for almost two hundred years, the rule of law relating to the admissibility of extra-Judicial confessions and statements. It IS generally accepted that confessions and incriminating statements must be voluntary in order to be admissible in evidence. However, debate arises as to the meaning, scope and effectiveness of voluntariness as the test of admissibility. The purpose of this thesis is to compare, by analysing separately and in depth the rules relating to the admissibility of incriminating statements and confessions in England, Canada and the United States as expressed by the United States Supreme Court. It IS intended to isolate the internal factors of the respective rules, and by so doing, to indicate their problem areas, similarities and differences, as well as to demonstrate the judicial attitude in each country as regards the rights of an accused person in police custody, in relation to police investigative practices. It is also intended to explore historical source regarding criminal confessions, and to follow the historical sequence of events leading to the modern voluntary rule, thus exposing the role played by the confession of an accused in the administration of criminal justice throughout history, as well as revealing the historical basis of the rule itself.