R v Gordon
From Flcasebook
Contents |
R v Iain Hay Gordon - 2000 - Northern Ireland Court of Appeal
Linguist(s) involved
Malcolm Coulthard - for the appellant.
Peter French - for the Crown.
Type of analysis
Disputed confession
Summary of case
It was disputed that the confession was taken by dictation - rather Coulthard's evidene suggested a question and answer session.
Linguistic evidence
From judgement:
The mode of taking the confession
Both Detective Superintendent Capstick and County Inspector Kennedy deposed in positive terms, as we have set out, that the confession had been taken by dictation from the appellant, and not by question and answer. Professor Coulthard in his report casts a substantial degree of doubt upon the correctness of the officers' averments, as do Professor Gudjonsson in his report of 26 February 2000 and Dr French in his report of 23 October 2000. If those averments had been shown to be wrong, it would have had a substantial adverse effect on the credit of both witnesses, as well as establishing a significant breach of the Judges' Rules. There can be little doubt that if counsel had had this additional evidence before them, they would have vigorously pursued the issue, which might well have had a considerable effect on the willingness of the judge to admit the confession as a voluntary statement. It would also have had a considerable bearing on the issue, to which the evidence of Professor Gudjonsson and Dr Hanley is material, whether the confession truly represents the appellant's own recollection or is what the former describes as a "coerced internalised" type of confession.
Academic references
None known
