False Confessions: Why Innocent People Sometimes Admit to Crimes They Did Not Commit
Most people find the idea of a false confession almost impossible to accept.
If someone has confessed to a crime, surely they must be guilty?
After all, why would anyone voluntarily admit to something they did not do, particularly when the consequences could include imprisonment, public disgrace, and the loss of their reputation?
It is a reasonable question. In fact, it is often the first reaction of jurors, police officers, and members of the public when they hear that a person has confessed to a serious offence.
Yet decades of research and a number of high-profile miscarriages of justice have demonstrated that false confessions are a real phenomenon. They occur more often than many people realise and have contributed to wrongful convictions around the world, including in New Zealand.
Understanding why false confessions occur is important because confession evidence is often regarded as some of the most persuasive evidence a jury can hear. Once a confession is obtained, it can fundamentally alter the course of a criminal investigation and subsequent trial.
Why Would an Innocent Person Confess?
The common assumption is that people act rationally and in their own best interests. Under that logic, an innocent person would simply deny the allegation and insist upon their innocence.
Real life is often more complicated.
Police interviews can be a stressful, intimidating, and emotionally exhausting experience. A suspect may be isolated from family and friends, confronted with allegations repeatedly, and made to feel that maintaining their innocence is futile. Often these interviews are conducted without advice or input from lawyers.
Some individuals are particularly vulnerable. Young people, people with intellectual disabilities, those suffering from mental health difficulties, and those with communication challenges may be more susceptible to suggestion or pressure. Research has consistently shown that these groups face a heightened risk of making false admissions.
In some cases, a person may confess because they believe it is the quickest way to end an uncomfortable situation. They may think the truth will eventually emerge or that they will be able to explain matters later.
Others may come to doubt their own memory after prolonged questioning, particularly if investigators repeatedly suggest that there is overwhelming evidence against them.
The result can be a confession that appears convincing on its face but is fundamentally unreliable.
The Problem with Confession Evidence
Confession evidence carries extraordinary weight.
Jurors often reason that while witnesses can be mistaken and forensic evidence can be challenged, people do not usually confess to crimes they have not committed.
That assumption is understandable but dangerous.
Psychologists and legal researchers have observed that once a confession is obtained, investigators may unconsciously focus on evidence that supports guilt while overlooking evidence that points to innocence. The confession can become the lens through which all other evidence is viewed.
This is one reason why courts scrutinise the circumstances in which admissions are obtained.
The question is not simply whether the accused uttered the words. The real question is whether the statement can be regarded as sufficiently reliable to be placed before a jury.
New Zealand Examples of Suspect Confession Evidence
Teina Pora
One of New Zealand's most significant miscarriages of justice involved Teina Pora.
Mr Pora spent approximately 20 years in prison for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett before his conviction was ultimately quashed. A significant feature of the case was his series of admissions to police. Over time, serious concerns emerged about the reliability of those statements, including his vulnerability during questioning and the extent to which details appeared to have been fed to him.
The case serves as a powerful reminder that a confession is not necessarily proof of guilt.
Alan Hall
Another notable example is Alan Hall, whose conviction was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court after decades of maintaining his innocence. The case raised concerns about the way admissions attributed to Mr Hall were obtained and relied upon during the investigation. It illustrates an important point: statements that appear incriminating may not always be reliable indicators of guilt, particularly where there are concerns about investigative practices or the vulnerability of the person being questioned.
The case has often been cited as one of New Zealand's most serious miscarriages of justice. Allegations were later raised that investigators had improperly obtained and relied upon admissions during the investigation.
Police Interviewing Practices
More recently, public scrutiny has been directed towards certain police interviewing techniques used in cold-case investigations. Investigative reporting revealed concerns that some methods risked producing unreliable admissions and contributed to at least one acknowledged false confession. Those revelations ultimately prompted reviews of police interviewing practices and changes to the way such interviews are conducted.
How Can a False Confession Be Challenged?
Many people assume that once a confession has been made, the case is effectively over.
That is not correct.
New Zealand law provides important protections designed to prevent unreliable or improperly obtained statements from being used as evidence.
The primary protections are found in the Evidence Act 2006.
Section 28: Reliability
Section 28 of the Evidence Act allows the court to exclude a statement made by a defendant if there is a real risk that the statement is unreliable because of the circumstances in which it was obtained.
The focus is on reliability.
The court may consider matters such as:
The age, mental state, or intellectual capacity of the defendant.
The length and nature of the questioning.
Whether the defendant was deprived of rest, food, medication, or support.
Whether improper pressure or inducements were used.
Whether the interviewing techniques created a risk of an unreliable admission.
If the judge concludes there is a real risk that the statement may not be reliable, the statement can be excluded entirely.
Section 30: Improperly Obtained Evidence
Even where a statement appears reliable, it may still be excluded under section 30 if it was obtained unfairly or in breach of a defendant's rights.
Examples may include:
Failing to properly advise a suspect of their right to consult a lawyer.
Continuing to question a suspect after they have invoked their right to silence.
Conduct that amounts to oppression, intimidation, or unfair pressure.
Under section 30, the court undertakes a balancing exercise. The judge weighs the seriousness of the impropriety against the public interest in admitting the evidence.
In some cases, a confession may be ruled inadmissible even where it appears highly relevant to the prosecution case.
The Importance of a Pre-Trial Admissibility Challenge
A challenge to confession evidence is usually dealt with before the trial begins.
This often involves a pre-trial hearing where the defence can cross-examine police officers and present evidence about the circumstances in which the statement was obtained. It also may require the admission of expert evidence from forensic psychiatrists or other medical professionals.
Video recordings of police interviews frequently become crucial evidence.
An experienced criminal defence lawyer will carefully examine not only what was said during the interview, but how it came to be said. Sometimes the most important issue is not the confession itself, but the process that produced it.
A successful admissibility challenge can dramatically alter the course of a prosecution. In some cases, the confession may be the central piece of evidence. If it is excluded, the prosecution's case can be significantly weakened.
Final Thoughts
Most people instinctively believe that innocent people do not confess.
The reality is more complex.
History has shown that false confessions do occur. They can arise from psychological pressure, vulnerability, poor interviewing practices, or a combination of factors. Once obtained, they can become extraordinarily powerful evidence, even when they are untrue.
For that reason, New Zealand courts treat confession evidence with caution and the Evidence Act 2006 provides important safeguards designed to ensure that unreliable admissions are not placed before a jury.
If you are being investigated for a criminal offence, or if police claim that you have made admissions that are inaccurate or misleading, obtaining legal advice at the earliest opportunity is essential. The circumstances surrounding a confession can be just as important as the words themselves. If you require assistance, contact Steven today who has experience in identifying and succesfully challenging false confession evidence.