1. Voluntariness

1. Voluntariness

The voluntariness rule requires the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession is not obtained from the accused by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage excited or held out; or by oppression; or by fraud by a person in authority.

Person in Authority

The term "person in authority" is defined as someone who holds authority or control over the accused or the legal proceedings related to the accused. This definition should be interpreted in an objective and liberal manner. Furthermore, there is a subjective element where the defendant has to actually perceive the individual as a person in authority.

To provide an illustration, a person in authority can potentially make an offer to the defendant, such as promising to drop charges against the defendant's friend. The defendant may reasonably believe that this offer could be fulfilled due to the authority figure's position and influence. The fact that an inducement is presented by someone in authority increases the likelihood that it will have an impact on the defendant's mindset.

If the defendant has a reasonable belief that an individual holds a position of authority, even if that belief is not technically accurate, the individual would still be regarded as a person in authority.

It is crucial to consider that the determination of whether an individual qualifies as a person in authority must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, even the victim or employer could be considered persons in authority. The specific circumstances and dynamics of each case play a significant role in determining who holds authority or control over the accused or the legal proceedings.

Fear of Prejudice / Hope of Advantage 

Instances of fear of prejudice may involve subjecting the accused to physical hardships, enduring long-term deprivation of liberty, or receiving threats such as "if you don't cooperate, we will make life difficult for you." 

On the other hand, hope of future advantage could manifest as promises for bail as incentives, the possibility of facing lighter charges, or granting benefits to friends or relatives of the accused. Express or implied inducements can be conveyed through both spoken words and actions. It is important to note that mere impropriety in the conduct of the person in authority without influencing the mind of the accused is insufficient, and the intention of the person in authority is also immaterial. 

Where it is alleged that a confession statement has been extracted by an inducement, the court adopts a two-step approach to decide whether to admit the confession in evidence: 

1. Whether there was any conduct on the part of the person in authority which is capable of constituting an inducement, that is, something which is capable of influencing the mind of the accused; and
2. If so, whether the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that such inducement had not influenced the mind of the accused.

Oppression

The concept of "oppression" in the context of confessions refers to actions or circumstances that undermine or weaken the free will of the accused, which is a necessary condition for a confession to be considered voluntary. It involves factors that have a tendency to erode the accused's ability to make independent and rational choices. It includes torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the use or threat of violence, whether or not amounting to torture.

Determining whether oppression exists in a particular case involves considering various elements and factors that may impact the accused’s state of mind and decision-making process.

Indeed, the determination of whether oppression exists in a particular case is a question of fact. Several relevant factors can be considered in this assessment, including:

• Length of time of questioning: Prolonged periods of questioning can contribute to a sense of coercion or oppression.
• Provision of proper refreshment: Denial of basic necessities such as food, water, or breaks for rest can contribute to oppressive conditions.
• Characteristics of the person making the statement: Factors such as age, health, and prior experiences with law enforcement can influence the vulnerability of the accused.

Other typical examples of oppressive conditions and circumstances may include denial of access to legal representation and confrontation with fabricated evidence.