R v Crowther-Wilkinson R v Cowie [2003] NSWSC 44

R v Crowther-Wilkinson R v Cowie [2003] NSWSC 44

The statement by Cowie was inadmissible because Inspector Berryman had formed a suspicion of Cowie before the statement was completed and there was no electronic recording made, as required by s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Both subjective and objective tests for suspicion were satisfied, and there was no reasonable excuse for not making a recording. The strict statutory requirements must be met, leaving no discretion to admit the statement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling (voir Dire)
Outcome
Evidence rejected
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Procedure' 'admissions' 'electronic Recording Requirements' 'suspect Identification']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'police Procedure' 'admissions' 'electronic Recording Requirements' 'suspect Identification']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement made by James Cowie to police is admissible given it was not electronically recorded as required under s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'Whether Cowie was a suspect at the time of making the statement for the purposes of s 108' 'Timing and formation of police suspicion relevant to the application of s 108']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement by Cowie was inadmissible because Inspector Berryman had formed a suspicion of Cowie before the statement was completed and there was no electronic recording made, as required by s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. Both subjective and objective tests for suspicion were satisfied, and there was no reasonable excuse for not making a recording. The strict statutory requirements must be met, leaving no discretion to admit the statement.

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected

Orders

  • ['The statement of James Cowie to police on 4 August 2000 is not admissible.']