Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Interrogation Taping Provisions Notes

Law Notes > Litigation - Criminal Procedure Rules Notes

This is an extract of our Interrogation Taping Provisions document, which we sell as part of our Litigation - Criminal Procedure Rules Notes collection written by the top tier of University Of New South Wales students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Litigation - Criminal Procedure Rules Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

1 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

1of 14

9b Interrogation: taping provisions s 281 CPA 9

Interrogation of Suspects: Right to Silence and Taping of Interview H&J 254-256 SM 150-180

Table of Contents

Intro to copy out for s 281 CPA problem qs / policy shit/ background shit Intro to issues

Policy shizzle

1. Whether interviews complied with the taping provisions in s 281 CPA and s 86 EA will determine whether or not evidence of admissions made during interviews are admissible. Whether or not s 281 applies depends on 5 issues: (1) whether the accused was or could reasonably have been a suspect at the time the admission was made (s 281(1)(a) (2) whether the accused made an admission ( s 281(1)) (3) whether the admission relates to an indictable offence (s 281(1)(c)) (4) whether the admission was made in the course of official questioning (s 281(1)(b)) (5) whether there is a reasonable excuse for not taping the admission: s 281(2)(a)-(b). note: S does not render an admission in breach of section inadmissible where no objection is taken by accused: R v Reid Kelly v R SM 155 Why record confessions?

* Prevent fabricate confessions, prevent misunderstanding misrecollection or coercion/ oppression

Taping provisions: Req 1#: was the accused a suspect? (Gonzales; LMW) 1 Whether the accused was or could reasonably have been suspected by an investigating official of having committed an offence: s 281(1)(a) Principles of 'reasonable suspicion':

* It is necessary to identify the subject matter of suspicion. The basis of the suspicion referred to in s 281(1)(a) is the state of mind of an investigating official. That state of mind is more than mere surmise or possibility, and must have factual basis. It is one arrived at on the basis of material that is capable of supporting the formation of an opinion, even if only a slight

1 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

1of 14

2 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

*

2of 14

opinion, that the person in question (the accused) could have committed an offence: Taouk; Gonzales Reasonable possibility is insufficient: Taouk

Case examples:

* In Gonzales - cops went to house, spoke to police and then spoke to appellant ( A crying/shaking/told PO that people had rushed past him when he got home, was distressed, police felt heat of vehicle, A then gave conflicting evidence to the two cops cops didn't ask appellant to initial the record because the cop didn't think that hat was necessary for people who weren't suspects, thought he was a POI). Then took appellant into interview room, statement was in the form of a statement of a witness, not of cautioned suspect, ( evidence about that no one hated the family,) nothing in statement suggested that appellant was a suspect o Held: evidence admissible because it was just statements that were made before he was suspected or could have reasonably been suspected of committing murders.

* In Taouk - Accuse went to station and said 'I want to report a disturbance, I've just shot someone, I had an argument with my brother and he had a gun, I took it off him and fired a few shots'. Was held that his attendance in the early hours of the morning, and saying that he wanted to report a disturbance, did not provide any grounds upon which PO could reasonably have suspected that he had committed an offence. Reasonable suspicion that he was a witness or a victim, common for this to happen, not common for public to report crimes which they themselves have committed.

* LMW, when cop went to accused's home + accused admitted pushing deceased into creek, didn't suspect A of offence - went seeking who had seen child last: LMW? but after first admission, elaborations + later interviews were made when he was a suspect.

2 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

2of 14

3 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

3of 14

2. Taping provisions: Req 2#: whether the accused made an 'admission'?

*

An 'admission' for the purposes of s 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1996 (NSW) are the same as that referred to in the EA ; Kelly; Horton o Includes any form of representation whether by conduct, oral or in writing and includes inculpatory or exculpatory statements which may turn out to be harmful for the defence: R v Horton o Where a statement which was on its face exculpatory was being used by the Crown as an answer to a reliance by the accused upon intoxication. o Any statement which is adverse to its maker in the outcome of the proceedings it o be considered as an 'admission' under the section: R v Esposito

* Not an admission: no in a q of lineups: When an accused was asked whether he wished to participate in a line up and he answered no the answer was not an admission for purposes of the section and therefore notwithstanding a failure to comply with the section the answer was admissible on the issue of whether identification evidence should be admitted under s 115 EA : Ah-See v Heilpern EA Dictionary: Admission means a previous representation that is: (a) made by a person who is or becomes a party to a proceeding (including a defendant in a criminal proceeding), and (b) adverse to the person's interest in the outcome of the proceeding.

3 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

3of 14

4 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

4of 14

3. Taping provisions: Req 3#: admission in course of official qing?
(Kelly) Rule: Whether an admission was made in the course of official questioning - "official questioning" means questioning by an investigating official in connection with the investigation of the commission or possible commission of an offence.

* Note that 'in the course of official questioning' is much broader than being 'in response to a question put' under s 86 EA, as s 281 CPA seems to apply to spontaneous outbursts, entirely non-responsive to any question or uttered during a pause in the flow of the question - there is no causal connection required between the admission and the official questioning: Kelly v R

* Principles from Kelly: (1) no requirement that person be in custody (2) it is admissions in the course of questioning not as a result of questioning orwithin a reasonable period after formal questioning, (3) where a PO says, 'lets go to the station so I can ask questions there', and then accused volunteers a confession, event was not in the course of official questioning if a nominated time has been in the future: Kelly v R Case example:

* No: Statement made by suspect 20 mins after conclusion of formal interview where no question had been asked by police officer to elicit statement. not within course of official questioning: Kelly v R o Here it was held that when the police said 'we'll conclude the interview' that was the conclusion.

* Siege situation: Statements made by the offender in siege situation were not in course of 'official questioning': R v Naa

* No: after arrest and caution: in Julin accused was questioned, and then arrested and cautioned, and then driven half a km to scene of crime during which time no conversation took place between him and PO - so the official questioning concluded prior to car trip when arrested and cautioned: Julin discussed in Kelly Note that Kelly has not been explicitly overruled by Nicholls , and the legislation was different in those cases. However a purposive approach to the legislation was preferred in Nicholls that coincides with the minority approach in Kelly - and thus if Kelly was appealed there could be a different result. Thus it is worth considering whether, if the issue was appealed and the minority approach prevailed, whether upon the approach of the minority would mean that the evidence in this fact scenario would be excluded/admitted. Minority position (to mention where situation is comparable to Kelly) 4 of 14

9b interrogation taping provisions s 281

4of 14

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Litigation - Criminal Procedure Rules Notes.