BACK TO IEA 1872
IEA 1872
Section 24
Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise
THE STATUTE
Original Text
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority, and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
Legal Commentary
Section 24 establishes the voluntariness doctrine for confessions — a confession is only relevant (admissible) if made voluntarily. An involuntary confession — extorted by inducement, threat, or promise — is irrelevant regardless of its truth.
**Three cumulative conditions for inadmissibility:**
1. *Inducement, threat, or promise:* Something was offered or threatened to the accused to make them confess. 'Inducement' includes promises of favour — 'if you confess, you'll get bail'; 'threat' includes threats of harm — 'confess or we'll arrest your family'; 'promise' includes assurances — 'if you tell us the truth, nothing will happen to you.'
2. *From a person in authority:* The inducement/threat must come from someone who has authority over the accused in respect of the matter — typically a police officer, magistrate, or employer. Promises from co-accused or strangers don't activate Section 24.
3. *Reasonable grounds to suppose advantage:* The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe that making the confession would gain them temporal advantage (lighter sentence, bail) or avoid temporal evil (harsh treatment, harm to family).
**Why 'irrelevant' not just 'inadmissible'?** Section 24 makes involuntary confessions 'irrelevant' — a stronger exclusion than inadmissibility. An inadmissible piece of evidence might become admissible if the procedural obstacle is overcome; an irrelevant fact has no bearing on the proceedings. The court cannot use an involuntary confession for any purpose — not even to test credibility of other evidence.
**Contrast with Section 25 (confession to police):** Section 25 creates an absolute bar on confessions to police officers — regardless of voluntariness. Section 24 creates a conditional bar — if the confession was voluntary (no inducement/threat/promise from person in authority), it is relevant even if made in police custody (which is why Section 26 adds a further custody restriction).
**The truth is irrelevant:** If a confession was involuntarily obtained, it is inadmissible even if true. This reflects the constitutional values — under Article 20(3), no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Questions & Answers
Yes — this is one of the most important intersections in confession law. Even if a confession is inadmissible under Section 24 (involuntary) or Section 25 (made to police), the information in the confession that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27. The part of the statement that relates to the discovered fact ('I buried the weapon in the backyard') can be used even if the rest of the confession is inadmissible.