LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW – Defences – Retracted Confessional Statement – How Court Should Treat
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The statement to the police by an accused person and their evidence in court, even though contradictory to the statement or in retraction of it, must both be considered; that is the only way the defense of an accused can be truly considered, no matter how stupid, contradictory or doubtful.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"It is thus now no more in doubt that the statement to the police by an accused person and his evidence in court even though contradictory to the said statement or in retraction of it must both be considered. That is the only way the defence of an accused can be truly considered, no matter how stupid, contradictory or doubtful."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When an accused makes a confessional statement to police then retracts it at trial (claiming it was false, coerced, or misunderstood), courts must consider both: (1) the original confession; and (2) the retraction and trial testimony. Courts cannot simply dismiss the retraction as afterthought or accept the confession uncritically. Both must be evaluated for credibility, consistency, and reliability. Even if the retraction seems implausible (“stupid”), contradictory, or doubtful, it deserves consideration—the accused has a right to be heard on why they now deny the confession. Courts assess: circumstances of confession-making, voluntariness, the retraction’s plausibility, consistency with other evidence, and whether the confession or retraction is more credible. This ensures fair evaluation of the accused’s entire defense, not just parts favorable to prosecution