R v CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL & BAKA (No 1) [2007] NSWDC 150
The combination of aggressive questioning, raised voices, references to the accused's family, and expressions of disbelief by police constituted oppressive conduct that influenced the making of admissions, so the prosecution failed to exclude the influence of oppression on the admissions. Consequently, the record of interview is excluded from evidence under s 84 of the Evidence Act.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 July 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Pre Trial (admissibility Ruling)
- Outcome
- Record of interview is excluded from evidence under s 84 Evidence Act
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility of Evidence' 'oppressive Conduct' 'record of Interview' 'admissions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial (admissibility Ruling)
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether admissions made by Simon Campbell during police interview should be excluded under s 84 and s 90 of the Evidence Act due to oppressive conduct by police']
Ratio Decidendi
The combination of aggressive questioning, raised voices, references to the accused's family, and expressions of disbelief by police constituted oppressive conduct that influenced the making of admissions, so the prosecution failed to exclude the influence of oppression on the admissions. Consequently, the record of interview is excluded from evidence under s 84 of the Evidence Act.
Court Disposition
Record of interview is excluded from evidence under s 84 Evidence Act
Orders
- ['The entirety of the AFP record of interview is excluded from evidence.' 'Conversations in the AFP Record of Conversation (exhibit 1B) and the taped record of conversation (exhibit 2B) are not excluded unless otherwise determined.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment