R v AKB (No. 1) [2018] NSWSC 1040

R v AKB (No. 1) [2018] NSWSC 1040

At the time of the statements in paragraph 11, the police officer neither suspected nor could reasonably have suspected the accused of committing an offence, so s 281 protections did not apply and the evidence was admissible. By the time of the conversation in paragraph 17, there were sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion and no adequate excuse for lack of a tape recording of an interview about the unrecorded admission, so the evidence was inadmissible under s 281.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Admissibility Ruling (voir Dire) Prior to Trial
Outcome
Evidence in paragraph 11 of Senior Constable Totakil's statement admitted; evidence in paragraph 17 rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 281' 'unrecorded Statements' 'tape Recording of Admissions' 'police Procedure']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw) S 281' 'unrecorded Statements' 'tape Recording of Admissions' 'police Procedure']

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 / Admissibility Ruling (voir Dire) Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements made by accused to police are admissible under s 281 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)' 'Whether at the time of admissions the accused was suspected or could reasonably have been suspected by police of committing an offence' 'Whether a reasonable excuse existed for failure to make tape recordings of admissions']

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of the statements in paragraph 11, the police officer neither suspected nor could reasonably have suspected the accused of committing an offence, so s 281 protections did not apply and the evidence was admissible. By the time of the conversation in paragraph 17, there were sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion and no adequate excuse for lack of a tape recording of an interview about the unrecorded admission, so the evidence was inadmissible under s 281.

Court Disposition

Evidence in paragraph 11 of Senior Constable Totakil's statement admitted; evidence in paragraph 17 rejected.

Orders

  • ['The evidence in paragraph 11 of the statement of Senior Constable Totakil of 21 October is admitted.' 'The evidence in paragraph 17 of the statement of Senior Constable Totakil of 21 October 2016 is rejected.']