R v Ronald [2024] NSWChC 4

R v Ronald [2024] NSWChC 4

The ERISP is not admitted because the protective purpose of s 13 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), failure of support person to meet required criteria or to advocate, combined with reckless impropriety by custody manager and officer in charge in disregard of clear instructions not to be interviewed, outweighs desirability for admission under s 138 Evidence Act. Even if admissible, the circumstances of obtaining the admission render its use unfair under s 90 Evidence Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome
Evidence not admitted
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'vulnerable Persons' 'police Interview Procedures' 'right to Silence' 'doli Incapax']
['criminal Law' "children's Law"] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'vulnerable Persons' 'police Interview Procedures' 'right to Silence' 'doli Incapax']

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 / Voir Dire (admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the electronically recorded interview of the young person (ERISP) should be admitted as evidence' 'Whether section 13 of Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) was complied with' 'Whether evidence was obtained improperly or in contravention of the law pursuant to section 138 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether use of the evidence would be unfair pursuant to section 90 of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The ERISP is not admitted because the protective purpose of s 13 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), failure of support person to meet required criteria or to advocate, combined with reckless impropriety by custody manager and officer in charge in disregard of clear instructions not to be interviewed, outweighs desirability for admission under s 138 Evidence Act. Even if admissible, the circumstances of obtaining the admission render its use unfair under s 90 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Evidence not admitted

Orders

  • ['The ERISP is not admitted.']