THE JUDGES RULE

In England, the manner in which the police should take statements from persons connected with crimes is dealt with in the Judges Rules. These rules were first formulated in 1912 by the Judges at the request of the Home office and were revised in 1964. Essentially, the rules are administrative directions and do not have the force of law. For this reason, failure to observe any of them in the taking of a statement will not necessarily render the statement inadmissible in evidence, although it may do so – Nwaebonyi v. State (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 698 C.A; Ejinma v. State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 627 SC; R. v. Viosin (1918) 1 K.B 531; R. v. Wattam (1952) 36 Cr. App R. 72; R. v. Day (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 91. The test of admissibility even under the rules is whether the statement was made voluntarily – R. v. Day (supra); R. v. Prager (1972) 56 Cr. App. R. 151.

Rules 2 and 3 of the Judges Rules appear to be the most commonly applied by police officers in Nigeria. As soon as a police officer has evidence which would afford reasonable ground for suspecting that a person has committed an offence, he shall caution that person or cause him to be cautioned before putting to him any questions, or further questions, relating to that offence. The caution shall be in the following terms “you are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say may be put into writing and given in evidence” – Rule 2 of Judges Rule. Where a person is charged with or informed that he may be prosecuted for an offence he shall be cautioned in the following terms “do you wish to say anything? You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence”.

After the above question, any other one relating to the offence should not be put unless they are necessary to prevent or minimize harm or loss to another person or to the public or to clear up an ambiguity and in such cases a further caution is prescribed – Rule 3 of Judges Rules

If a suspect intends to write his own statement, he should be asked to write and sign the following statement before he starts writing out his statement: "I make this statement of my own free will. I have been told that I need not say anything unless I wish to do so and that whatever I say may be given in evidence". And if it is written by a police officer the accused must state at the end of the statement thus: "I have read the above statement and I have been told that I can correct, alter or add anything I wish. This statement is true. I have made it of my own free will".

Persons other than police officers charged with the duty of investigating offences must as much as possible comply with the Judges' Rules. Apart from complying with the Judges' Rules, the Nigerian police have evolved the practice of taking an accused person who has made a confessional statement to a Superior Officer or a District Officer at the earliest possible time for endorsement. This is to give the accused the opportunity to deny or retract his statement. This practice has been highly commended – R. v. Omorewere Sapele (1957) 2 FSC. 24; Nwigboke v. R. (1959) 4 F.S.C 26; Adamu v. A-G. Bendel State (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 22) 284.

It should be noted that the Judges rules as well as the confirmation of confessional statement by superior police officers is a rule of practice and not a rule of law and therefore failure to comply with them does not render a confession that was voluntarily made inadmissible. R. v. Voisin (1918) 1 KB. 531; Abukar v. The State (1969) NSCC Vol. 6 at 313.

But in asking the accused to confirm or deny his statement taken down in a language other than English, the proper thing to do is to read the statement in its original form and not its English translation if the accused is illiterate – R  v.  Nwangbo Igwe (1960) 5 FSC. 55.

It should be noted that where an interpreter is used in recording an accused's confession such confession is inadmissible unless both the interpreter and the person who recorded the statement are called as witness – Nwaeze v.  The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 428) P 1.

It has been held that before an accused person can be invited to pose for a photograph which would strengthen the case against him, he should be cautioned and told he is not bound to pose for such photograph Ugama v.  R (1959) 4 FSC. 218. A confession is only admissible against the person who makes it. R v. Ajani & Ors (1936) WACA 3 even when it is made in the presence of a co-accused unless the co-accused adopts the confession, it is not admissible - section 27 (3); Evbuompan v. Police; R.  v. Enabosi (1966) 2. All NLR 116; Afolabi v. Police (1961) All NLR 654. The State v. Pratt & Anor 1977/8 C.C.H.CJ.1729.; R  v. Afose (1934) 2 W.A.C.A. 118.

A confessional statement alone is sufficient to ground a conviction once the court is satisfied with the truth of the confession. Yusufu v. The State (1976) 6 SC 167.

A confessional statement is sufficient to ground a conviction without corroboration provided the court is satisfied with the truth of the confession even if it is inconsistent with the accused's statement in court. See Egboghonome v. The State (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt. 306) P. 383. In determining the truth of the confession, however the Court must ask itself certain questions see lkpo v.  The State (1995) 12 SCNJ 64 at 75.

However, the fact that a confessional statement does not contain the usual cautionary words is not enough reason not to admit it in evidence – Nwaebonyi v. State (supra). In Sunday Onunga v. The State (1976) S & C. 169, the Supreme Court held that a confession made without caution and even before the maker was charged with an offence is admissible provided it was voluntary. Also, when a suspect or an accused person who has been cautioned is making a statement, there is no need to caution him again when he begins to make a confession – Sangara v. The State (1965) 1 All NLR 59.

Follow @wingrassnews

Victor C. Ezekiel Esq, has many years experience in providing legal representation and advising clients across an exceptionally broad range of contentious and non-contentious matters. His main goal is to help clients resolve any contentious or non-contentious legal problem they are having rapidly and cost effectively.

Email: victorezekielc@gmail.com

Tel: +2348034997413