{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032044198895027624, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02430939226519337, 'mean_word_length': 4.69811320754717, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, S. 76(2): Re-Emergence of the Involuntariness Test

Under s. 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (hereafter 'PACE') a court is empowered to exclude a confession which was or may have been obtained by oppression or in consequence of anything said or done which is likely to render it unreliable. It is a general misconception that s. 76(2) has replaced the common law test of voluntariness by a dual statutory test of oppression and unreliability. It is submitted below that s. 76(2) does not represent a break with the traditional English test of involuntariness. It requires an involuntariness test which may be called a 'qualified involuntariness test'. To put this argument as convincingly as possible, some clarification as to the admissibility of confessions prior to the enactment of PACE, and the parliamentary history of s. 76 would be useful.