Section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) puts in place a strong reverse burden of proof. It was for me as the representative of the Crown to convince the judge – to the criminal standard – that the confession had not been obtained by “oppression”. This was done by calling the police officer or customs officer who had conducted the interview to describe how they had carefully followed the procedures set out in Code C of PACE to the letter, and often by calling the custody sergeant who had responsibility for ensuring that all those entering a police station were properly processed, and who kept a detailed log of what happened to that detainee minute by minute. Code C also required the tape recording of interviews, and so the court could consider the words or even tone of voice of the interview itself. And PACE also required that a lawyer was present, which was almost always the case. A reverse burden of proof is a very powerful tool, if judges take it seriously. There is essentially a presumption that the confession was unlawful, unless the state can prove otherwise. For the prosecution, this required a concerted effort for the confession to be admitted in evidence. For the police, it required them to follow strict procedures. The legislation had an instant impact, making it almost impossible for forced confessions to be used to secure a conviction, and at a stroke eliminating one of the strongest incentives for torture. Tainted by Torture REDRESS and Fair Trials conducted research a few years ago into the use of evidence obtained by torture in the criminal justice process, and produced a report Tainted by Torture that presented our findings. International law is quite clear that there must be safeguards against torture in the criminal justice system, including a strong reverse burden of proof when it comes to the consideration of forced confessions. Yet our research demonstrated that a clear presumption was lacking from most national systems, even those of quite developed democracies. As has been well documented, in many countries the police rely on confessions as their main form of securing convictions, in the absence of other effective investigation methods, and given the scarce resources available to them. Our research revealed that even in those countries where there was a legal process to exclude evidence, it was often not effective in practice. There was a particular problem in monist systems, where international law was deemed to apply directly, but without a practical safeguard in place that controlled the way that a decision to exclude a confession was made, those international standards were worthless. In many countries there was no regime at all, but only a general approach to considering the probative value of evidence. The report came up with a number of suggestions for how things could be improved. More training for police and judges. A focus on rights-compliant investigations. Further research. Gathering of data. But most simply – the introduction of an explicit regime for the admission of evidence alleged to have been obtained by torture or ill-treatment that put in place a strict reverse burden of proof. A proposal What would be the impact of the introduction of a relatively simple safeguard against torture? In England and Wales it was accompanied by other safeguards such as the use of a custody sergeant, and the tape recording of interviews, as well as the provision of a ‘duty solicitor’ to provide legal advice. And the cost of PACE ended up being much greater than initially anticipated, mainly due to the lawyers. But given advances in technology, the cost of recording interviews must now be minimal compared with the cost of unpicking miscarriages of justice. Of course, the reverse burden of proof and tape recording of interviews are only one of a number of safeguards that can be put in place, most notably the encouragement of an alternative to beating and 23