Jim, a drug addict, confesses to police in order to be released from custody to feed his addiction. The court cannot rely on the confession as it is unrealiable. The Court of Appeal held in R v Goldenberg, that 'anything said or done,' a prerequisite for a confession to be held unrealiable under S76 (2)

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

In R v Goldenberg, the Court of Appeal did not specifically address the reliability of confessions made under the influence of addiction or the desire to be released from custody. The statement "anything said or done" is a misinterpretation of the criteria under S76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which focuses on the circumstances in which a confession was obtained, such as oppression or in situations where the confession might be unreliable due to the state of the person confessing. The reliability of a confession is assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering all circumstances, not automatically deemed unreliable based on addiction or desire for release.

Jim, a Drug Addict, Confesses to Police in Order to Be