The appellants were convicted of aggravated assault with intent to steal contrary to s. 295 of the Penal Code. In convicting the second and third appellants the trial court relied heavily on confessions which the Supreme Court felt were probably true, but as to the making of which the evidence of voluntariness was highly unsatisfactory.
Held:
(i) The condition of admissibility of an incriminating statement is not truth but voluntariness.
(ii) The basis upon which evidence of an incriminating statement is excluded in the absence of proof of voluntariness is not that the law presumes the statement to be untrue in the absence of such proof, but because of the danger which induced confessions or admissions present to the innocent and the due administration of justice.
