A police officer's arrangement of a private meeting with a suspect, without recording equipment but with knowledge that a listening device is installed at the suspect's home, does not render subsequent statements involuntary or require exclusion as a matter of discretion, provided no representation is made that the conversation is 'off the record'. The distinction between a promise to keep information confidential (which may result in statements being made) and an inducement affecting voluntariness (hope of advantage or fear of prejudice) is maintained. In circumstantial cases, hypotheses consistent with innocence cease to be rational where the evidence supporting them lies within the accused's knowledge and the accused elects not to give evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.