R v MARTIN ROSS HAUSFELD [2002] NSWSC 630

R v MARTIN ROSS HAUSFELD [2002] NSWSC 630

The medical material and the ERISP did not establish on the probabilities that the accused was a vulnerable person by reason of impaired intellectual functioning as at 15 December 2000. The accused appeared articulate, philosophical, reflective and idiosyncratic or eccentric, but that did not amount to impaired intellectual functioning as defined. In any event, the custody manager and interviewing officer had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not in a vulnerable category. There was therefore no contravention of Part 10A warranting exclusion under s 138. Specific answers were excluded where irrelevant, where they related to oral admissions under ss 86 and 90, or where...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Certain Answers in an Electronically Recorded Interview
Outcome
Application partly allowed: some ERISP questions and answers excluded, and the balance of the challenged answers admitted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of ERISP Answers' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'vulnerable Persons' 'impaired Intellectual Functioning' 'detention After Arrest' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['admissibility of ERISP Answers' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'vulnerable Persons' 'impaired Intellectual Functioning' 'detention After Arrest' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Certain Answers in an Electronically Recorded Interview

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused was a vulnerable person by reason of impaired intellectual functioning under the Crimes (Detention After Arrest) Regulation 1998.' 'Whether the custody manager and interviewing officers had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not in a category of vulnerability.' 'Whether alleged non-compliance with Part 10A of the Crimes Act 1900 required exclusion of answers under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether specific questions and answers in the ERISP should be excluded under provisions including ss 85, 86, 90 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The medical material and the ERISP did not establish on the probabilities that the accused was a vulnerable person by reason of impaired intellectual functioning as at 15 December 2000. The accused appeared articulate, philosophical, reflective and idiosyncratic or eccentric, but that did not amount to impaired intellectual functioning as defined. In any event, the custody manager and interviewing officer had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not in a vulnerable category. There was therefore no contravention of Part 10A warranting exclusion under s 138. Specific answers were excluded where irrelevant, where they related to oral admissions under ss 86 and 90, or where...

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed: some ERISP questions and answers excluded, and the balance of the challenged answers admitted.

Orders

  • ['Questions 252 to 267, 306 to 309 and 317 to 318 were excluded as irrelevant.' 'Questions 324 to 331 were excluded under s 86 and s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Questions 287 to 290 and 311 to 315 concerning recklessness were rejected under s 85 and s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'The answers to questions 30,...