SMITH J.: (His lordship referred to the facts, and continued):
The learned magistrate was wrong in the way he dealt with the matter. I refer to the cases of R.v. Murray ([1951] 1 K.B. 391) and R.v. Francis and Another (43 Cr. App. R. 174).
In the former case Lord Goddard, C.J. said:
“The Recorder was wrong in the course which he took. It was quite right for him to hear evidence in the absence of the jury and to decide on the admissibility of the confession; and, since he could find nothing in the evidence to cause him to think that the confession had been improperly obtained, to admit it. But its weight and value were matters for the jury, and in considering such matters they were entitled to take into account the opinion which they had formed on the way in which it had been obtained. Mr. Hooper was perfectly entitled to cross-examine the police again in the presence of the jury as to the circumstances in which the confession was obtained, and to try again to show that it had been obtain…