Mrs s A. Pu Purrya rryag-Ramful amful Seni nior or State e Couns nsel el Office e of the DPP PP
“Judges’ rules relate to the interrogation and taking of statements by the Police.”
The Judges’ Rules attempt to reconcile an essential conflict of interest between the need of not unduly hindering the police in its investigations and the need of protecting the accused against unfair treatment. So long as the enquiring officers stand guided by the norms of fairness contained in the Judges’ Rules, the parameters are set for a fair trial.
In giving evidence as to the circumstances in which a statement was taken down, police officers must be absolutely absolutely fran frank in describing to the court exactly what occurred.
Judges’ Rules are guidelines for enquiring officers to prevent an abuse of authority on their part. AND in cases of confessions to ensure that they are made voluntarily.
There are 5 b basi sic c princi nciples ples which should not affect these Rules: • Citizens have a duty to help a police officer to discover and apprehend offenders. • Police officers, otherwise than by arrest, cannot compel any person against his will to come or remain in any police station. • Every person at any stage of an investigation should be able to communicate and consult privately with a legal adviser.
A police officer who is making enquiries on a person • about an offence should inform that person as soon as possible of the charge against him. Another fundamental condition for the admissibility • of evidence is that of voluntariness. Every evidence gathered from the Accused, must be done voluntarily, that is, it must no not have been obtained from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage or by oppression.
It is very important to note that nonconformity with these Rules may render answers and statements liable to be excluded from evidence by the court of law.
When a police officer is trying to discover whether, or by whom, an offence has been committed he is entitled to question any person, whether suspected or not, from whom he thinks that useful information may be obtained.
As soon as a police officer has reasonabl reasonable susp suspic icion ion that a person has committed an offence, that person shall be cautioned before putting any questions or any further question relating to that offence. “ You u are e not t obliged liged to say anythin thing g unles less s you wish sh to do so but t what t you say may be put t into to wri riting ting and given in evidence.” When after being cautioned a person is being questioned, or elects to make a statement, a record shall be kept of the time and place at which any such questioning or statement began and ended and of the persons present.
Where a person erson is charged arged with or informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence he shall be cautioned in the following terms: “ Do you wi wish to say y anyth ything? ing? You are e not obliged ged to say anything thing unless ess you wi wish to do so but wh whatever ever you say y wi will be taken en down wn in writing and may be given in evidence.”
It is only in exceptional cases that questions relating to the offence should be put to the accused person after he has been charged or informed that he may be prosecuted. Unless it is necessary for preventing or minimising harm or loss to some other persons or to the public or for clearing up ambiguity in a previous answer. “I wish to put some questions to you about the off ffence with which you have been charge ged d (or about t off ffence fo for wh which h you ma may be prosecut cuted). ed). You are not obliged…..”
Again the same principle applies in regards to the way the statement is recorded. ◦ Time ◦ Place ◦ Person present (witness)
The difference between Rule II and Rule III. ◦ When should Rule II be used? ◦ When should Rule III be used? Case of St State te v v Bundhun dhun 2006 06 SC SCJ J 254 • The two stages approach: o That where police is investigating and when interrogation is warranted. o That after the accused has been charged with an offence and when interrogation should not normally be continued .
When enquiry is still on the applicable Rule is Rule II. The use of Rule III will prevent the police from taking any further statement from the Accused unless it fall within the exception, ie, ambiguity etc.
This Rule is in regards to ‘all written statements’ after a caution is made. Accused should be asked whether he wishes to write down himself what he wants to say. If he says he cannot write or says he does not wish to do so and then a police officer may offer to write the statement for him but before doing so he should make him sign a statement “ I …… wish wish to to make make a statement. I want statement want someone meone to to write write do down what what I say say. I hav have been been told told that that I need need not not say say anyth anything ing un unles less I wish wish to to do do so so and and that at whatever whatever I say say may may be be gi given ven in in evi vidence dence. ”
In case he is writing his own statement he shall be asked to write out and sign the following before writing what he wants to say “ I make this statement of my own free will. I have been told that I need not say anythi hing ng unless ss I wish to do so and that whateve ver I say may be given in evidence.” It It is is vi vita tal th that at when whenev ever er a po polic lice offic fficer writ writes es a stat st atement ment he he tak takes es dow down the ex exact act words words as as spoke ken by by the person making the statem ement nt. The statement has to be coh oher erent, ent, inte ntell lligib igible le and relevant nt to to the material matters.
A statement should be followed by a certificate: “ I have ve read ad the above ve stateme ement nt and d I have ve been en told that t I can correct, rect, alter er or add anyth ything ing I wi wish. . This s statemen tement is true. ue. I have ve made it of my own free will.” What happens if the person declines to read or to write the certificate? ◦ The senior police officer present shall record on the statement itself and in the presence of the person making it what has happened.
What happens if the person making the statement is unable to read it over or refuses to read it? ◦ The officer who has taken it down should read it and ask him whether he would like to correct, alter or add anything. ◦ Put his signature or mark at the end. ◦ Police officer shall then certify on the statement itself what he has done.
This is a provision whereby after a person has been charged with, or has been informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence a police officer wish ishes es to to brin bring to to th the notic notice of of tha that per erson son any written statement …… he shall hand to that person a true copy … .. Nothing shall be said or done to invite any reply or comment. If the person states that he wishes to make a reply then he shall be cautioned or further cautioned at once according to Rule III(a).
Wadud v State 1999 SCJ 187 State v Bundhun 2006 SCJ 254 The Queen v Boyjoo 1991 MR 284 Samserally v State 1993 MR 94 Mauritius Criminal Law Review 2013 [Pg 251]
THANK YOU…
Recommend
More recommend
