STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

WEIGHT/CONSIDERATIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO A CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The fact that an accused person denies making a confessional statement to the police, does not render such extra-judicial statement inadmissible merely because the accused person denies having made it. What the Court is expected to do to determine the weight to be attached to a retracted confessional statement is to test its truthfulness and veracity by examining the said statement in the light of other credible available evidence. The Court would consider whether: a. There is anything outside that Confessional statement to show that it is true; b. It is Corroborated; c. The facts stated in it are true as far as it can be tested; d. The accused person had the opportunity of committing the offence; e. The accused person’s confession is possible; f. The confession is consistent with the other facts ascertained and proved at the trial. See Per OKORO, JSC, in ALAO V. STATE (2019) LPELR-47856(SC) (PP. 23-24 PARAS. E).

— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Friday Charles v. The State of Lagos (SC.CR/503/2020, Friday March 31 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

confessional statement

A RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST BE CORROBORATED TO BE ADMISSIBLE

The Respondent subsequently retracted Exhibits C & C 1. A retracted confessional statement is nonetheless admissible in evidence. The practice however is to look for some corroborative evidence outside the confession which makes the fact of the making of the confession credible and reliable before the Court relies on it to convict the accused, the maker. This practice which has come to be known as the “SYKE’S RULE”, following R. v. SYKES (1913) 8 Cr. App Report 233, has since become part of our criminal law jurisprudence, it having been cited with approval in several cases including UBIERHO v. THE STATE (2005) 5 NWLR (pt. 919) 644; FABIYI v. THE STATE (2015) LPELR 24834 (SC). The Rule ensures that the trial Court must properly satisfy itself that the retracted confession was infact made truly and voluntarily by the accused person.

— Ejembi Eko, JSC. State v Sani Ibrahim (2019) – SC.1097/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

TRIAL-WITHIN-TRIAL IS TO TEST VOLUNTARINESS OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS ONLY

I agree with the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Appellant’s counsel had really misunderstood the fundamental requirement in criminal trial. A trial within trial is required in law where the objection to admissibility of a statement is based on the ground that it was not made voluntarily. In that case there has to be a trial within trial to determine the question of voluntariness. It is only where this is proved by the prosecution that the statement is admitted in evidence.

– Galadima, JSC. Kingsley v. State (2016)

Was this dictum helpful?

RETRACTED CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MUST MEET FOLLOWING TESTS

My Lords, the confessional statement of the Appellant was retracted by him in the course of the trial and the position of the law as reiterated by this Court in several cases is that the statement must meet the probability test set out in R. v. Sykes (1913) 18 CR All Pg. 233: a) Whether there is anything outside it to show the statement is true, b) Whether it is corroborated, c) Whether the statement made in it of fact so far as they can be tested are true, d) Whether the accused had the opportunity of committing the offence, e) Whether it is consistent with other facts which have been ascertained and have been proved.

– Ogunwumiju JSC. Junaidu v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

CONFESSION DOES NOT BECOME IRRELEVANT DUE TO DECEPTION

My Lords, the law is trite that a confession otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced on the defendant for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he needed to have answered, whatever may have been the form of these questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such statement and the evidence of it might be given.

– J.I. Okoro JSC. Berende v. FRN (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

RETRACTION OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

Additionally, on the retraction of the contents of Exhibit A at the trial by the Appellant as DW1, the law is settled that a retraction or denial of a confessional statement does not affect its admissibility. Thus, the mere fact that a confessional statement is challenged on the ground that the accused person did not make the statement, does not render it inadmissible in evidence. In such a situation, the application of the following principles should be considered in determining whether or not to believe and act on a confession which an accused person has resiled from: a) Whether there is anything outside the confession which may vindicate its veracity; whether it is corroborated in any way; b) Whether its contents, if tested could be true; c) Whether the defendant had the opportunity of committing the alleged offence; or d) Whether the confession is possible and the consistency of the said confession with other facts that have been established.

– Sankey JCA. Abdul v. State (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

CO-ACCUSED INCRIMINATING CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT

On the issue of his Co-Accused’s Statement, the Appellant is right that his statement cannot be used against him. The position of the law is that the Statement of a Co-Accused Person to the Police is binding on him only see Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586. However, where the evidence incriminating an Accused Person comes from a Co-Accused Person, the Court is at liberty to rely on it as long as the co-accused person who gave such incriminating evidence, was tried along with that Accused Person. see Dairo v The State (2017) LPELR-43724(SC) and Micheal V. State (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 383.

— A.A. Augie, JSC. Usman v The State (2019) – SC.228/2016

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.