R v Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251

R v Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251

The admissions made by the accused during interviews with the Australian Federal Police on 7 and 12 November 2003 and 9 January 2004 were influenced by oppressive and unlawful conduct by ASIO officers, including false imprisonment and coercion, rendering the records of interview inadmissible under ss 84, 85, and 138 of the Evidence Act 1995. The prosecution did not discharge the onus to prove the admissions were unaffected by oppressive conduct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire (pre Trial) Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Records of interview excluded as evidence; admissions ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'false Imprisonment' 'oppressive Conduct' 'statutory Interpretation' 'search and Seizure']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'false Imprisonment' 'oppressive Conduct' 'statutory Interpretation' 'search and Seizure']

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 / Voir Dire (pre Trial) Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's admissions during interviews are inadmissible due to oppressive conduct by ASIO and AFP" "Whether ASIO's conduct constituted false imprisonment or kidnapping" 'Whether the prosecution has met its onus under ss 84 and 85 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether the caution given to the accused was adequate']

Ratio Decidendi

The admissions made by the accused during interviews with the Australian Federal Police on 7 and 12 November 2003 and 9 January 2004 were influenced by oppressive and unlawful conduct by ASIO officers, including false imprisonment and coercion, rendering the records of interview inadmissible under ss 84, 85, and 138 of the Evidence Act 1995. The prosecution did not discharge the onus to prove the admissions were unaffected by oppressive conduct.

Court Disposition

Records of interview excluded as evidence; admissions ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • ['The records of interview of 7 and 12 November 2003 and 9 January 2004 are inadmissible.']