The Retracted Confession and the No-Case Ruling
In a High Court trial in Sekondi, Kwesi is charged with robbery. The prosecution’s case rests on (i) a confession statement in which Kwesi allegedly admitted the robbery, and (ii) a single identifying witness who saw the robber for about five seconds under a street light. Kwesi retracts the confession. He says police slapped him and told him he could not see a lawyer until he signed. The judge conducts a voir dire, but the police investigator is the only witness; Kwesi is not called; the judge rules the statement voluntary and admits it. At the close of the prosecution, defence counsel submits that there is no case because the confession is retracted and the identification is weak. The judge says, ‘I have read the confession; it is detailed. I will call on the accused to open his defence.’
1. Explain the procedure and burden of proof on a voir dire into the voluntariness of a confession, and evaluate the judge’s conduct.
Read the worked answer
A voir dire is a trial within a trial, held in the absence of the jury, to determine whether a confession was voluntarily made. The prosecution bears the burden of proving voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt. It should call the investigator and any other officer present; the accused must be given a real opportunity to testify and to call witnesses; defence counsel may cross-examine. The judge decides admissibility, not weight.
On these facts the judge’s conduct is defective: he heard only the investigator, did not call Kwesi although Kwesi had a positive account of assault, and then relied on the detailed content of the confession. Content is irrelevant to voluntariness; a detailed statement can still be beaten out of a suspect. The judge should have excluded the statement if left in doubt. The error is a strong ground of appeal, though not every procedural irregularity automatically vitiates the trial.
2. Apply the submission of no case test to these facts. Was the judge right to call on Kwesi to open his defence?
Read the worked answer
The no-case test is whether the prosecution has adduced evidence on each essential element from which a reasonable court could convict, not whether the evidence is so strong that conviction is certain. The court should not resolve credibility at that stage. Here there is some evidence: the confession was admitted and the identifying witness spoke to the robbery. That is enough to call on Kwesi, so the judge’s ultimate decision to call on the defence may be correct. But his reason was wrong. Saying ‘I have read the confession; it is detailed’ shows he has weighed the truth of the confession before hearing the defence.
The proper ruling is that a prima facie case exists, while noting that the retracted confession requires caution and that the identification is weakened by the five-second observation. The defence should renew the voluntariness and identification points in the defence case and in appeal.
3. Identify the ethical and professional duties of defence counsel and the prosecutor at this stage.
Read the worked answer
Defence counsel must object clearly to the voir dire procedure and the judge’s reasoning, but must not coach Kwesi to lie or invent assault. If Kwesi gives evidence, counsel should examine him consistently with his instructions and put the allegation to the investigator. The prosecutor’s duty is to disclose any material that undermines the prosecution case, including the circumstances of the taking of the statement and any prior inconsistent description by the identifying witness. The prosecutor should not defend the confession merely because it helps the case; the duty is to justice.
Both counsel owe a duty to the court not to mislead it about the law or facts. If the judge’s conduct is repeated, defence counsel should consider an application for the judge to recuse, though that is a serious step and should be based on a recorded objection.