Moreover, it was held that even when there is a state-witness agreement that has been signed, the existence of the agreement in itself does not constitute a temptation that necessarily leads to the negation of the free will that leads to the invalidation of the confession, but rather the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement must be examined.
The following is Turk's approach in relation to the above:
With regard to the initiative test, at p. 17, paragraph 29 of the judgment:
"... The position of the case law was, therefore, that where the initiative arose to conclude a state-witness agreement from the investigators, the intensity of the temptation placed at the door of the witness-accomplice was so great that it cannot be said that the confession he gave was given of free will. Thus, his confession becomes inadmissible, since it does not meet the requirement of freedom of will set forth in section 12 of the Evidence Ordinance."
With regard to the significance of the initiative test and its reasons, at pp. 20-21, paragraph 33 of the judgment:
"The initiative test bases itself on three main reasons: the protection of freedom of will; maintaining fairness towards the interrogee and the autonomy of his free will; and the public interest in encouraging state witness agreements and ensuring the proper and efficient work of the police. These reasons also clarify the rationale underlying the rule according to which where the initiative to obtain the status of a state witness of the interrogee took place - his confession will be admissible as evidence against him. The assumption is that where the interrogee initiates the offer to receive the status of a state witness and the interrogators only respond to this offer, the concern that he may have given his confession of his own free will dissipates. This is because, in the absence of a promise or offer to receive the status of a state witness, and in the absence of such a possibility, there is no temptation or intimidation that may harm the freedom of will. Similarly, the consideration of fairness towards the witness-accomplice also loses its validity in these circumstances, since his confession is not given on the basis of the expectation that the confessions he gave will not be used against him. The assumption is therefore that a suspect who takes the reins of the initiative to conduct negotiations for the status of a state witness does not provide incriminating information on the basis of a promise made by the investigating authorities, but does so while taking a calculated risk that the things he says will be used against him..."