R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1128

R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1128

The first admissions made at the accused's home were admissible because, before those admissions, the police officers did not suspect and did not reasonably have to suspect the accused of an offence, no caution was then required, and the admissions were freely volunteered and reliable. Section 424A did not exclude them. Later admissions at the home and at the police station were not excluded by s 424A because there was a reasonable excuse for the absence of tape recordings, but they were excluded under s 90 because, once the accused had admitted wrongdoing, his age, impaired functioning, and the inadequacy or absence of an effective caution made it unfair to use those later admissions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence of Conversations With Police
Outcome
The Crown was permitted to adduce evidence of the matters referred to in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Constable French's statement, but not the substance of what was said by the accused as referred to in paragraphs 17 and 27.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'police Questioning' 'tape Recording Requirement' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'caution of Child Accused']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'police Questioning' 'tape Recording Requirement' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'caution of Child Accused']

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 Proceeding / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence of Conversations With Police

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the accused's admissions should be excluded under s 424A of the Crimes Act because no tape recording was available." 'Whether the admissions should be excluded under ss 85, 90, 137, 138 or 139 of the Evidence Act.' 'Whether it would be unfair to admit admissions made by a young accused at home and at the police station in the circumstances of the questioning and caution.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first admissions made at the accused's home were admissible because, before those admissions, the police officers did not suspect and did not reasonably have to suspect the accused of an offence, no caution was then required, and the admissions were freely volunteered and reliable. Section 424A did not exclude them. Later admissions at the home and at the police station were not excluded by s 424A because there was a reasonable excuse for the absence of tape recordings, but they were excluded under s 90 because, once the accused had admitted wrongdoing, his age, impaired functioning, and the inadequacy or absence of an effective caution made it unfair to use those later admissions.

Court Disposition

The Crown was permitted to adduce evidence of the matters referred to in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Constable French's statement, but not the substance of what was said by the accused as referred to in paragraphs 17 and 27.

Orders

  • ["The Crown may adduce evidence of the matters referred to in paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Constable French's statement." "Evidence is not allowed as to the substance of what was said by the accused as referred to in paragraphs 17 and 27 of Constable French's statement."]