R v Latu (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1913

R v Latu (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1913

The admissions contained in the impugned parts of the police statements were made in circumstances where the accused was a suspect and was being officially questioned; s 281 required the admissions to be recorded or put to the accused in the ERISP, which did not occur. There was no reasonable excuse for senior officers not to revisit the admissions in a recorded interview. Therefore, the evidence of those admissions is inadmissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial (voir Dire)
Outcome
Evidence of the impugned admissions ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Questioning' 'admissions' 'recording of Admissions' 'procedure Under S 281 Criminal Procedure Act']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Questioning' 'admissions' 'recording of Admissions' 'procedure Under S 281 Criminal Procedure Act']

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 / Procedural Ruling During Trial (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether admissions made by accused to police were admissible' 'Whether s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) was complied with regarding recording of admissions' 'Whether reasonable excuse existed for not electronically recording admissions']

Ratio Decidendi

The admissions contained in the impugned parts of the police statements were made in circumstances where the accused was a suspect and was being officially questioned; s 281 required the admissions to be recorded or put to the accused in the ERISP, which did not occur. There was no reasonable excuse for senior officers not to revisit the admissions in a recorded interview. Therefore, the evidence of those admissions is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Evidence of the impugned admissions ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • ['The admissions contained within paragraphs 7 and 14 of the statement of Allen and paragraphs 20, 27 and 28 of the statement of Micallef-Scheffer are admissions taken in circumstances that do not comply with s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act and accordingly that evidence cannot be adduced.']