In such cases, it is deemed that the confessions ceases to be reliable, and, as a result, may not tenable in a Court of Law. In such cases, what needs to be assessed is not what transported after the confessions was obtained, but what anteceded the confession, or in other words, the role of actions that led to the signing of the confessions by the defendants. "To justify the arrest, there had to be evidence that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that the arrestee had committed the offence." (What is a citizen’s arrests 2007).
In the interpretation of Section 76 (2) of the Act, it has been determined that where the prosecution wished to admit evidence in substantiation of their arguments, to establish complicity of the accused, the Courts, may disallow the said evidence to be used, if it has reasons to believe that this has been given under ‘oppression’ of the person, or by the occurrences of certain events or circumstances, which has rendered the evidence as unreliable. In such cases, it is for the prosecution to evidence that the evidences, true or otherwise was not obtained through "oppression’ or other undesirable methods. (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ch 60). 2007).
It is further seen under Section 78, that the law also covers exclusion of ‘unfair evidence’ which states, that the Courts have discretionary powers to disallow evidence brought in by the prosecution as a basis of their argument, which, in the opinion of the Court, could have an "adverse effect" on the principles of fair trial for the accused. How However, this section needs to consider taking cognizance of the inclusion of evidence when rule of law specifically provides that it should be obeyed by the Court. (Statutes: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Ch 60): Part VIII – Evidence in Criminal proceeding: General Confession:
In this case it is seen that proceedings were initiated against Mr. Harry Collingwood and Mr. Fred Vaughan after alleged possession of items that could because blasts were recovered from search of their premises. Although they maintained their innocence, they were denied services of lawyers, and were subjected to physical and mental degradation. A solicitor or appropriate adult must be permitted to consult a detainee’s custody records as soon as practicable after their arrival at the station and at any other time which the person is detained. (Police and criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). 2007).
After this, they were forced to sign confessional statements accepting their complicity in the bomb blasts in Central London station. The evidences that could be used against Harry and Fred are: 1. the presence of incriminatory evidences in their premises 2. Their confessional statements forcibly made by Detective Inspector Lewis.
There are various statutes which deal with the matter of explosive substances found in the possessions of residents of UK. Under the Explosive Substances Act 1883, if any explosive substances are found in the possession of a person, unless he can prove that its use was for ‘lawful purposes’ he could be sentenced to penal servitude for not less than 14 years, or imprisonment for 2 years. (Explosive Substances Act: 1883. 2007). In this case, if the substances were genuinely in the possession