SOME ASPECTS OF RULES OF EVIDENCE - CONFESSION AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FROM UNAFEI - REPORT FOR 1977 AND RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO 15, 1978 - SEE NCJ-58438)

• NCJ Number: 58451
• Author(s): M KAPI
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 6 pages
• Corporate Author: United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders
• Publication Format: Document
• Language: English
• Country: Japan

Annotation

PARTICIPANTS, FROM PAPUA NEW GUINEA, KOREA, JAPAN, AND SINGAPORE, DISCUSSED ASPECTS OF RULES OF EVIDENCE RELATED TO CONFESSION AND HEARSAY. THESE RULES MUST BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF SOCIETY AND DEFENDANTS.

Abstract

ACCEPTING THE DEFINITION OF A CONFESSIONS AS BEING A STATEMENT MADE BY SUSPECTS IN WHICH THEY ADMIT COMMITTING A CRIME OR CRIMES, THE GROUP FOCUSED ON TWO APPROACHES TO OBTAINING CONFESSIONS. IN JAPAN AND KOREA, THE SUSPECTS WERE EXTENSIVELY QUESTIONED BEFORE A CONFESSION WAS ACCEPTED, WHILE IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND SINGAPORE, AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO OBTAIN A CONFESSION BEFORE INTENSIVE POLICE QUESTIONNING. IN ALL FOUR COUNTRIES, THE LEGAL SYSTEM REQUIRED THAT SUCH STATEMENTS BE MADE VOLUNTARILY. IT WAS AGREED THAT INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS WERE UNTRUSTWORTHY AND REQUIRED THE STATE TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. IN BOTH JAPAN AND KOREA CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SUSPECT WAS ALLOWED, BUT IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND SINGAPORE IT WAS NOT ALLOWED. IN JAPAN, KOREA, AND SINGAPORE, THE POLICE WERE ALLOWED TO QUESTION SUSPECTS DURING DETENTION; THIS RIGHT WAS NOT GIVEN IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA. THE JAPANESE PROVISION THAT THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR COULD ESTABLISH THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE INTERVIEW BETWEEN DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL WAS CRITICIZED, BUT MENTION WAS MADE OF THE SAFEGUARDS AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS. THE JAPANESE AND KOREAN CODES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE EXPRESSELY STATE THE RIGHT OF SUSPECTS TO REMAIN SILENT, WHILE PAPUA NEW GUINEA HAS ADOPTED BRITISH PROCEDURES. THE 1977 AMENDMENT TO THE SINGAPORE CRIMINAL CODE RELATING TO THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED TO REMAIN SILENT WAS CRITICIZED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE WARNING NOTICE READ TO SUSPECTS COULD BE VIEWED AS AN INDUCEMENT INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. SECONDLY, THE SUGGESTION THAT SUSPECTS DISCLOSE THEIR DEFENSE STRATEGY TO THE POLICE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF LEGAL COUNSEL WAS ALSO ATTACKED. DISCUSSION ALSO FOCUSED ON DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF JUDGES IN DETERMINING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS; EVIDENCE OBTAINED ON AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION; PROBATIVE VALUE OF CONFESSIONS; AND CONFESSIONS OF COOFFENDERS. HEARSAY EVIDENCE WAS ADDRESSED IN TERMS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE POLICE; DEPOSITION OF WITNESSES AND EXPERTS; AND PREVIOUS WRITTEN STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES. (KCP).