R v Raymundo Antonio Orellana (No 3) [2009] NSWDC 199

R v Raymundo Antonio Orellana (No 3) [2009] NSWDC 199

The tendered admissions were admissible because the court was not satisfied that s 23G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) had been breached, the accused understood the caution and his choice whether to answer questions, the questioning was fair, the accused's condition and use of an interpreter did not make it likely that the truth of the admissions was adversely affected, the accused's requests for a lawyer did not make the evidence inadmissible under s 89, admitting the evidence would not be unfair under s 90, and the identified unclear or indistinct passages were not likely to mislead, confuse, or cause undue waste of time under s 135.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Importing a Border Controlled Drug Alleged to Be a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine Contrary to S 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Part of a Record of Interview
Outcome
The evidence tendered is admissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'record of Interview' 'police Questioning' 'right to Communicate With a Lawyer or Friend' 'caution' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'record of Interview' 'police Questioning' 'right to Communicate With a Lawyer or Friend' 'caution' 'improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']

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 Prosecution for Importing a Border Controlled Drug Alleged to Be a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine Contrary to S 307.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Part of a Record of Interview

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether admissions in part of the record of interview were obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law.' 'Whether any breach of s 23G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) occurred by deferring contact with a friend or lawyer.' 'Whether the accused understood the caution and chose to continue answering questions.' 'Whether the circumstances were such that the truth of the admissions was adversely affected for the purposes of s 85 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether the evidence was inadmissible under s 89 of the Evidence Act 1995 because of possible unfavourable inferences from the accused's wish to speak to a lawyer." 'Whether use of the admissions would be unfair under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 as misleading, confusing, or causing undue waste of time.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendered admissions were admissible because the court was not satisfied that s 23G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) had been breached, the accused understood the caution and his choice whether to answer questions, the questioning was fair, the accused's condition and use of an interpreter did not make it likely that the truth of the admissions was adversely affected, the accused's requests for a lawyer did not make the evidence inadmissible under s 89, admitting the evidence would not be unfair under s 90, and the identified unclear or indistinct passages were not likely to mislead, confuse, or cause undue waste of time under s 135.

Court Disposition

The evidence tendered is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence tendered by Mr Walsh is admissible.']