Is the statement a confession, who relies on it, and against whom?

PACE s 82(1) defines a confessionGlossary termConfession broadly: it includes a statement wholly or partly adverse to its maker, whether made to a person in authority or not, and whether made in words or otherwise. An admission need not amount to “I am guilty”. A formal interview answer, an unsolicited remark to a civilian, a written message or communicative conduct can qualify. Identify what was communicated in context, not merely the police label or the speaker’s intention to avoid conviction.

A mixed statementGlossary termMixed statement contains both adverse and exculpatory material. “I carried the bag, but I believed it contained clothes” admits participation while qualifying the maker’s knowledge. Whether participation is adverse depends on the allegation and context; where it is, the statement is a confession even though it is not an admission of every element of the offence. When the prosecution adduces the mixed statement, its relevant explanation is evidence too. The defendant need not give oral evidence before the explanation can be considered. Different parts may receive different weightGlossary termWeight of evidence, but the prosecution cannot simply discard the qualifying words because they help the defence. (PACE s 82(1); R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22, paragraph 51.)

Contrast a statement which is wholly exculpatory when made. “I was elsewhere and had nothing to do with it” is not retrospectively transformed into a confession merely because other evidence later contradicts it. Its admission or use may raise other evidential issues, including s 78, but s 76 is not a universal control on everything said in an interview.

Case application — Hasan. In R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22, paragraphs 46–58, an account given to police on a confidential basis was used to challenge the defendant’s trial account. The House of Lords distinguished a statement’s exculpatory character when made from the damaging use later made of it. A wholly exculpatory statement does not become a confession simply because its inconsistency with the later defence assists the prosecution. Apply that distinction to a false alibi. Its possible evidential value does not supply the missing adverse content at the time of the statement. This classification ruling does not dispense with the separate fairness inquiry.

Next identify the user and target:

• Prosecution against the maker: PACE s 76(1) permits a relevant confession, subject to s 76(2)–(3) and other exclusionary controls, including s 78.
• Another defendant relying on the maker’s confession in the same proceedings: PACE s 76A is the distinct route, explained in section 6. Its standard of proof differs.
• Prosecution against somebody other than the maker: admission against the maker does not by itself make the words evidence against another defendant. Identify a separate lawful route and purpose; the hearsay analysis belongs in Deep Dive 7.