How Are Confessions Reconsidered During Appeals?

Confessions can be powerful evidence in criminal trials. However, they are also among the most controversial forms of evidence because people sometimes admit to crimes they did not commit, or statements may be obtained unfairly. In the appeal process in England and Wales, courts do not simply re‑try the whole case. Instead, they assess whether the conviction was “safe” and whether the confession evidence was obtained and admitted properly in accordance with the law. This article explains how confessions are reconsidered on appeal, what legal frameworks apply, the role of fresh evidence, and what options exist if a conviction is unsafe.

What Is a Confession in Criminal Law?

A confession is an admission of guilt or involvement in a criminal offence. In English law, a confession can take many forms: a recorded interview with police, written statements, or even statements made outside formal questioning that the prosecution puts before the jury. Confessions are powerful because they suggest the defendant accepted responsibility for the crime, but they must be treated with caution due to risks of coercion, misunderstanding, or false admissions.

The Appeal Court's Role

When a defendant appeals against conviction in England and Wales, the case normally goes to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appeal court does not re‑hear the case as a jury would. Instead, judges decide whether the conviction is unsafe based on legal and factual grounds. This includes scrutinising whether the confession was admissible and fair, and whether it affected the safety of the conviction.

The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 sets out the legal framework for criminal appeals. It permits the court to receive evidence not originally heard at trial in limited circumstances and to consider whether there were errors of law or fact that undermine the conviction.

Legal Standards Governing Confessions

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

The starting point for considering confessions in appeals is section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). Under section 76, if it is claimed that a confession was obtained by oppression or in circumstances likely to render it unreliable, the court must exclude that confession from evidence. “Oppression” includes threats, violence, and inhumane treatment. PACE also includes safeguards about recording interviews and ensuring access to legal advice. 

If a confession is excluded but was central to the conviction, the appeal court may find the conviction unsafe. Additionally, section 76A PACE allows a defendant to rely on confessions made by co‑accused persons, subject to proving reliability. 

Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the Court of Appeal may consider new evidence that was not before the trial court if it is in the interests of justice. The court will evaluate:

• whether the new evidence is credible;
• whether it might afford grounds for allowing the appeal;
• whether it could have been admitted at trial; and
• why it was not presented originally. 

Fresh evidence in confession appeals often comes from psychological or expert analysis showing that a confession was unreliable due to coercion, mental vulnerability, or misunderstanding. If credible new evidence suggests a confession was unsafe, the conviction may be quashed.

Grounds on Which Confessions Are Reconsidered

When reviewing confiscations on appeal, courts may consider several legal and procedural issues:

1. Admissibility at Trial

Appeal courts examine whether the trial judge correctly applied PACE and other legal rules when deciding to admit the confession as evidence. If the trial court failed to exclude a confession obtained improperly or where the circumstances would render it unreliable, this can be a ground for finding the conviction unsafe. 

In L.R. v. (Admissibility of Confession Evidence) [2024] EWCA Crim 544, the Court of Appeal upheld a conviction after finding no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the confession. The court confirmed that judges must assess whether the circumstances objectively made the confession unreliable. 

2. Procedural Fairness

The court also considers whether proper procedural safeguards were observed at the time the confession was obtained. This includes whether the suspect was cautioned appropriately, given access to a solicitor, and whether interviews were appropriately recorded. Failures in these safeguards may lead to exclusion of the confession. 

3. New Expert Evidence

Appeals sometimes turn on expert evidence concerning false confessions. Experts may explain psychological vulnerabilities, coercive questioning techniques, or suggestibility that could call the confession's reliability into question. If this evidence was not available at trial and meets the statutory criteria, it may be admitted on appeal.

Notable appeal cases have involved expert testimony on false confessions where courts ultimately quashed convictions because of the unsafe nature of the evidence. In some cases, convictions were overturned after decades in prison when new psychological evidence showed a confession was unreliable. 

The Role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is an independent statutory body that investigates possible miscarriages of justice in England and Wales. It can review conviction cases and refer them to the Court of Appeal if it concludes there is a “real possibility” the conviction or sentence will not be upheld. Many appeals involving confession evidence begin with a CCRC referral. 

The CCRC can obtain fresh evidence and expert analysis that was not before the trial court, often significantly affecting how confession evidence is viewed by the appeal court.

Practical Considerations for Appeals Based on Confession Evidence

If a defendant believes that a confession leading to conviction was unsafe, the following steps are typically involved:

Early Legal Advice and Representation

An experienced criminal appeal solicitor or counsel can review trial records and assess whether procedural errors occurred in obtaining or admitting a confession.

Review With CCRC

If standard appeal routes have been exhausted, applying to the CCRC may be appropriate. The CCRC can obtain fresh evidence, including psychological reports and expert assessments, which could strengthen appeal grounds.

Documentation and Expert Reports

Gathering medical, psychological, and procedural records about how the confession was obtained can be vital. Expert reports may provide objective views on whether the confession was reliable or coerced.

Judicial Review and Supreme Court Involvement

In rare cases involving points of law of general public importance, decisions of the Court of Appeal can be taken to the UK Supreme Court, although this is limited to legal questions rather than reassessment of facts. 

Common Challenges in Confession Appeals

High Bar for Fresh Evidence

Courts apply strict criteria when admitting fresh evidence. The appeal court will not consider evidence that could reasonably have been presented at trial without a convincing explanation for its absence originally. 

Safety, Not Guilt or Innocence

Appeal courts do not decide guilt or innocence. Even if new evidence supports innocence, the focus remains on whether procedural or legal errors render the conviction unsafe.

Compensation Prospects

Quashing a conviction does not automatically lead to compensation. Claimants must satisfy separate legal tests for compensation, which may require proof on the balance of probabilities that they did not commit the offence.

Key Takeaways

Confessions are scrutinised carefully on appeal in England and Wales. The Court of Appeal assesses whether the confession was admissible and obtained fairly under PACE, and whether any new evidence undermines its reliability. The Criminal Cases Review Commission plays a key role in referring potential miscarriages of justice to the appeal courts. Appeals based on confession evidence require a combination of legal expertise, procedural analysis, and, where relevant, fresh expert evidence illustrating unreliability or coercion. Understanding these processes helps defendants and solicitors navigate complex appeal routes and evaluate the strength of arguments relating to confession evidence.