K v The Public Prosecution Service

[3] At the time of the interview the appellant was 17 years and 3 � months old. At the conclusion of the prosecution case counsel on behalf of the applicant applied that the evidence of the interview should be excluded.

i. that the police should have arranged for an appropriate adult to be present during the interview and their failure to do so had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court should exercise its discretion and exclude the evidence of the interview (presumably under Article 76 of 1989 Order);

iii. that while the appellant was not a juvenile at the relevant time in accordance with the terms of the 1989 Order, he should have been treated as a 'youth' in accordance with the definition of a child, that is a person under the age of 18 years, as prescribed in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

In light of the report of the Stratford case the Panel inquired if counsel wished to call any evidence on the sole issue of admissibility. Counsel declined to do so. It was suggested that this placed an onus of some sort on the appellant. We do not agree when the issue was the admissibility of confession evidence. The Panel then considered the following circumstances surrounding the confession �

[5] The appellant applied to the Youth Panel to state a case for the opinion of this Court on the question whether the Panel 'were correct in law in refusing to exclude the interview of the appellant from evidence under the provisions of Article 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989'.