Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

exclude a prepared exculpatory written statement produced and read at policeinterview 28 .7.4.8 In Ireland, similar common law principles apply. If the Crown seek to adduceevidence of a statement, the whole of that statement may be used as proof offact by either party 29 . A wholly exculpatory statement is not admissible. Butthe Irish courts too have recognised that the dividing line between what isincriminating and what is exculpatory can be a fine one 30 .7.4.9 Canada has generally followed the English common law rules on statements;admitting those against interest as “probably true” 31 ; excluding those whichare entirely self serving 32 ; and admitting the whole of a mixed statement 33 .The Review understands that if the prosecution adduce a statement inevidence, it will in practice always be regarded as at least “mixed”. However,the Supreme Court has recently 34 disapproved of the practice in England andWales 35 whereby juries are directed that less weight might be attached to theexculpatory elements of a mixed statement. A similar situation exists inAustralia 36 .7.4.10 In New Zealand, the matter has been codified whereby, if the prosecution leadevidence of any statement made by an accused then it is admissible as28 ibid and R v Newsome (1980) 71 Cr App R 32529 People (DPP) v Clarke [1995] ILRM 355, O’Flaherty J at 36330 see generally McGrath: Evidence 8-181 et seq under reference to AG v McCabe [1927] IR 129,Kennedy CJ at 13331 R v Hodgson [1998] 2 SCR 449, Cory J at para 1732 R v Simpson [1988] 1 SCR 3, McIntyre J at 2233 R v Hughes [1942] SCR 517 at 52134 R v Rochas [2008] 3 SCR 11135 suggested by Lord Lane CJ in Duncan (supra) at 36536 Mule v The Queen (2005) 221 ALR 85307