ABSTRACT
At this stage Constable Lamb considered what he had been told and he decided he was not satisfied and said to the appellant: ‘I am arresting you on suspicion of theft of the car and the property in it’, and he cautioned him. He asked him: ‘Do you understand?’, to which the appellant said: ‘Yes, sure.’ He was then asked to empty his pockets and among the property was a large roll of English money. The officer asked: ‘Where is this from?’ Answer: ‘It’s mine. I won it on the horses today.’ There was then a conversation about how much there was and where it had come from, and he was told he was also under arrest for suspected theft of the money. Then both he and his co-accused were taken to West Drayton police
The next matter to which we turn, in the light of the evidence, is the allegation that this conversation amounted to a confession. Both in this interview, and more particularly in the later interview, the appellant at times is alleged to have admitted ownership of certain items, although by no means all of them, that were found in the car ... In the current edition of Archbold (1993) ... it is said that section 82(1) was not aimed at statements which the maker intended to be exculpatory and which were exculpatory on their face, but which could later be shown to be false or inconsistent with the maker’s evidence on oath. It seems to us that that is precisely the situation here in relation not only to the answers in which the appellant denied ownership of certain items but also in relation to those answers where he accepted ownership of certain items, and accordingly, in our judgment, neither the conversation at the roadside nor, when we come to it, the conversation in the police station yard amounted to a confession ...2
