Admissibility of withdrawn confession

Question

I quite often read stories like the following in the news:

Bob is arrested for alleged bribery and falsification of business records. During his first interrogation, he confesses everything, and the case appears to be clear. Later on however, he withdraws his confession, probably based on a recommendation by his attorney, and tells some very different stories about what happened.

Is his first confession now void and inadmissible in court?

Obviously, the case gets much more difficult for the prosecution and will also take considerably more time. Assume the prosecution doesn't find good evidence besides his initial confession.

Could the judge still rule something like "Your new stories are very unlikely as they're not coherent at all - we do believe that your initial confession is actually true and thus you are guilty"?

I'm assuming that (correct me if I'm wrong - things might depend on jurisdiction, too)

• Bob was given the relevant briefing about his right to keep quiet and that whatever he says can be used against him at his first interrogation.
• It is legal that his first interrogation happens without an attorney present.

Answer 1

canada

If the confession was voluntary, and obtained in a manner consistent with Charter rights, it will be admissible

As a starting point, the statement by the accused, made out of court, and sought to be admitted at trial to establish the truth of its contents is hearsay and would be inadmissible if not for the exception described next.

One exception to hearsay is that statements made by accused are admissible against the accused. See R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34, paras. 52-53.

The particular issue with "confessions" is that they are usually obtained in the course of police interrogation, creating the risk of false confessions. These circumstances require that a judge inquire into the voluntariness of the confession. If there is a reasonable doubt about voluntariness, the confession is not admissible. R. v. Oickle, 2000 SCC 38, para. 68:

If the police interrogators subject the suspect to utterly intolerable conditions, or if they offer inducements strong enough to produce an unreliable confession, the trial judge should exclude it. Between these two extremes, oppressive conditions and inducements can operate together to exclude confessions. Trial judges must be alert to the entire circumstances surrounding a confession in making this decision.

You have also rightly recognized (although set aside for the purpose of your question) the possibility that evidence may be excluded if it was obtained in a manner that infringes an accused's rights. In Canada, this is not an automatic exclusion, but a remedy that may be made if the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

How the judge or jury decides to weigh the evidence (the prior confessions, and the more recent alternative stories) is a matter of discretion. It is open to the judge or jury to accept "some, all, or none of a witness's evidence" (R. v. J.M.H., 2011 SCC 45, para. 25).