Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Week 8: Admissions and Confessions - Coggle Diagram
Week 8: Admissions and Confessions
Admissions
Admissions may reflect any representation made by a person, contrary to their own interests, prior to the trial.
Who is bound by admission?
In general as admission may only be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule to be used against the person who made the admission:
R v Spinks/Fairey
(1982) 74 Cr. App. R 263
However in limited circumstances, a statement may be admissible against a successor in title:
Nowell v Palmer
(1993) 32 NSWLR 574
'whatever a party says, or his acts amounting to admissions, are evidence against himself':
Slatterie v Pooley
(1848) 151 ER 579
'The hearsay rule and the opinion rule do not apply to evidence of an admission':
Evidence Act 1995
(Cth) s 81(1)
Confessions
'Confession' is commonly used in criminal cases to express that an accused has admitted to the entire offence.
An accused person may confess the offence in full, or they may admit specific facts which go to the offence.
'There is no doubt that a confession is admissible in evidence':
McKay v R
(1935) 54 CLR 1
Rationale for the Exception
The law balances the probative versus the prejudicial value of evidence. Ultimately probative value of an admission outweighs its prejudicial potential.
There is a presumption that a statement made by a person against their own interest is likely to be true.
However, admissions and confessions are just evidence; they are not conclusive.
'What a party himself admits to be true, may reasonably be presumed to be so. The weight and value of such testimony is quite another question. That will vary according to the circumstances, and may in some cases be quite unsatisfactory to a jury.':
Slatterie v Pooley
(1848) 151 ER 579
Civil v Criminal Rules
Criminal cases require a higher standard of proof than civil cases; the court thus needs to have greater surety of the justice of a conviction; and
In criminal cases, the accused person faces agencies such as the police service, in which there is substantial power imbalance
Additional requirements and rules bind the use of confessions and admissions in criminal cases compared to the use of admissions in civil cases, because:
Admissions v Formal Admissions
Formal admissions are essentially agreements between the parties, for the purpose of the trial, to treat certain facts as true. They excuse the need for evidence.
Formal admissions may be positive, adverse or neutral toward a litigants case.
Admissions are statements by a single party in relation to a fact contrary to their own interests. They require an exception to the hearsay rule.
The easiest way to tell the difference is to look for the agreement. Formal admissions must be agreed in writing by the the parties before the trial. Admissions require no such agreement.
Admissions in civil cases
Admissions need not be made voluntarily
Admissions are generally only useful against the person who makes the admission; however, admissions by a third party may be admissible.
Apologies
Apologies represent a special type of admission, particularly in tort cases.
Apologies no longer imply an acceptance of liability
Apologies are not, in fact, admissible in any civil proceeding to indicate fault or liability on the part of the person making the apology:
Civil Liability Act 2003
(Qld) s 72D
Admission by silence
Silence can constitute an admission in civil cases, where there is no 'right to silence':
Young v Tibbits
(1912) 14 CLR 114
However, courts are reluctant to draw this inference unless the surrounding circumstances make it very clear that the inference should be drawn:
Thatcher v Charles
(1961) 104 CLR 57
Personal Knowledge
Itis not necessary that the person making the admission must have direct personal knowledge of the facts to which he is admitting:
Smith v Joyce
(1954) 89 CLR 529
They might, for instance, be relying on the reports of others. This is one of the few cases in which remote hearsay might be allowable.
Even if such evidence is admitted, it will be very rare for it to be given compelling weight
Admissions by Agents
A legal person (most often, though not exclusively, a corporation) can be bound by the admissions of a person acting as their agent, provided it is reasonable to assume the agent is entitled to speak for the principal:
Fraser Henleins v Cody
(1945) 70 CLR 100
This is not really an exception to the rule that only the maker of an admission is bound. An agent is essentially adopting the legal identity of the principal.
Confessions in Criminal Law