Well, yes and and no. Of course, judges can and should rule 'in the public interest'. I am not aware of any case in which a catholic priest (or a CofE priest) has ever been subpoenaed to give evidence of what occurred in a confession, and I would be interested to learn of the procedure which occassioned that. It would seem to me to be covered by PACE (excluded material).
I note your comments that 'Judges don't tend to press that hard'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the discretion under PACE'. I can tell you that the judges with which I dealt pressed hard, demanded evidenced and reasoned legal arguments, and issued orders/warrants that were never - never -overturned by higher courts.
(This is a UK (E&W) perspective.) Judges don't try to 'persuade' people. They explain the options. You don't f@@k with the judge, ever.
And here is a true story. I had a case (related to my post above about judges ordering bank information). The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided.
Well, it's a simple 'yes'. The case law for this is very well established. To put it exceptionally bluntly, "Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important even than his life or his fortune, are not protected" (Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881)). There's a load more, but that's where the case law is. Old. But not 1603 old like the Church of England legislation. We don't recognise the seal of the confessional as being sacrosanct in English law. When push comes to shove, we have had Catholic priests sent down for contempt, although I can't recall anything recent getting quite that far.
By "press hard", we obviously don't see clergy being asked to reveal confessional secrets very often in Britain. You were under the impression that it couldn't happen, so it's clearly not a regular feature of British courts. And under PACE ( ss 76,78 & 82(3)) judges have discretion to exclude evidence if they so choose - hence discretion under PACE as I said. As the JWs found out in Newcastle, there's steel under the silk and discretion to exclude isn't always used.
Hope that's clear enough of an explanation.