§ SECTION 22 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

The confessions stretch opens with its foundation: a confession bought by hope or extracted by fear — planted by authority, about the charge — is no evidence at all. Two provisos draw the line’s exact edges.

How to read Section 22

Four pressures, three links, one wash, five non-taints.

What it is about

A confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise is irrelevant in the criminal proceeding.

The three links

The pressure must touch the charge, come from authority, and be strong enough for a reasonable temporal hope or fear.

The provisos

1: taint fully removed → confession revives. 2: secrecy, deception, drink, needless questions, no warning — not taint.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 22 · verbatim

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, coercion 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 grounds which would appear to him reasonable 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:

Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant:

Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

In short: the law refuses confessions born of planted hope or fear — pressure about the charge, from authority, strong enough to move a reasonable man. But the taint can wash off (proviso 1); and secrecy, trickery, drink, needless questions and a missing warning were never taint at all (proviso 2).

→ The 2023 text does two things at once: it adds coercion to the classic trio, and folds the old separate sections on the wash and the non-taints into two provisos of a single rule.

Glossary

confession

An admission of the offence by the accused — the gravest admission there is.

inducement · threat · coercion · promise

The four pressures — hope offered, fear planted, force applied, reward held out.

person in authority

Someone the accused could reasonably see as able to deliver on the hope or fear — police, magistrate, master.

temporal

Worldly — bail, release, leniency; spiritual comfort does not count.

impression fully removed

Proviso 1’s test — time, caution or changed custody erasing the planted hope or fear.

The picture

The taint test — and its two edges.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe two provisos

the ruleA confession must be free

In one lineA confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise — about the charge, from authority, strong enough to move a reasonable hope or fear — is thrown out.

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding,⚠ the exclusiona tainted confession is thrown out of the criminal trial.

if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promisethe four pressureshope or fear, planted from outside — the 2023 text adds coercion expressly to the old trio.

having reference to the charge against the accused person,link 1 · the chargethe pressure must concern this very charge.

proceeding from a person in authoritylink 2 · authorityfrom someone who can deliver — police, magistrate, an employer over the matter.

and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable 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:link 3 · the calculusstrong enough that he reasonably believed confessing would win a worldly gain — or dodge a worldly evil — in the proceedings.

ExampleA sub-inspector tells the suspect: “admit it, and I’ll see you get bail tomorrow”. Inducement ✓ about the charge ✓ from a person in authority ✓ a reasonable temporal hope ✓ — the confession that follows is irrelevant.

✗ Not thisAll three links must hold: a neighbour’s advice fails authority; a threat about an unrelated dispute fails the charge; a vague “confession is good for the soul” fails the temporal calculus — spiritual comfort is not a worldly gain.

the two provisosThe wash — and the five non-taints

In one lineProviso 1: once the impression is fully removed, the confession revives. Proviso 2: secrecy, deception, drink, needless questions, no warning — none of these is taint.

Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed,proviso 1 · the washtime, caution or changed custody can wash the taint off…

it is relevant:…revived…and a confession made after the impression is fully gone is relevant.

Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevantproviso 2 · five non-taintsan otherwise-relevant confession survives all five of the following:

merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy,1 · secrecy“this stays between us” — broken, but no taint.

or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk,2 & 3 · trick & drinkobtained by trickery — or while he was drunk — still in.

or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions,4 · needless questionsanswers he never had to give — whatever the form of the questions.

or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.5 · no warningthe missing caution does not, by itself, exclude it.

ExampleWeeks after the inducement, in different custody, a magistrate cautions the accused plainly — and he still confesses. The court finds the old impression fully removed: proviso 1 revives the confession.

✗ Not thisProviso 2 saves only confessions otherwise relevant — it never cures a § 22 taint itself. And the police-custody walls of the next section are separate and stricter: surviving § 22 does not mean surviving § 23.

Connected provisions

§ 15

IEA 1872, §§ 24, 28, 29

This provision carries forward section 24 — with the old sections 28 and 29 folded in as its two provisos.

BSA 2023 — Section 22: Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise