VOLUNTARINESS AND THE PERSON IN AUTHORITY DOCTRINE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF COUNTER-TERRORISM EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS IN THE UK AND PAKISTAN

Abstract

This article looks at a growing problem in modern law: how can we really tell if a confession is voluntary when the government is dealing with serious terrorism cases? The research focuses on the “Person in Authority” rule. In simple terms, this means a confession should only count if it wasn’t pushed or pressured out of someone by a person they see as powerful or in charge. The core issue is that while the law is supposed to protect free will, counter-terrorism rules often create exceptions that make it easier for pressured statements to enter the courtroom. By comparing the legal systems of the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the UK) and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as Pakistan), the study examines how different statutes—like PACE 1984 in the UK and the ATA 1997 in Pakistan—handle the "Person in Authority". The research finds a troubling gap: in the UK, judges have a lot of personal power to decide what is fair, whereas in Pakistan, a “Rule of Prudence” requires courts to be cautious about confessions that the accused later withdraws. The key question is whether these protections are strong enough to block “tainted evidence” or confessions obtained through psychological pressure or torture. The study concludes that without strict rules requiring additional proof or corroboration, the right to a fair trial is at risk.