REGINA v. TANG [2001] NSWCCA 210

REGINA v. TANG [2001] NSWCCA 210

The appellant was under 18 when interviewed, no person required by s.13(1)(a) was present, and the interviews contained significant admissions and material bearing heavily on credibility in a trial that depended on a conflict between the appellant and the other boys. Even if police were misinformed as to his birth date, there was a significant possibility that a trial judge would have rejected the interviews under s.13, and, without them and the associated cross-examination, a significant possibility of acquittal. The conviction could not stand and a new trial was required.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal Before the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'admissibility of Erisp' 'child Accused Interviewed Without Accompanying Person' 'section 13 Children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'children and Criminal Proceedings'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'admissibility of Erisp' 'child Accused Interviewed Without Accompanying Person' 'section 13 Children (criminal Proceedings) Act 1987' 'fresh Evidence' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']

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 Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal Before the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements made by the appellant to police, including an electronically recorded interview and a recorded walk-through interview, were inadmissible by reason of s.13 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 because the appellant was a child and no prescribed accompanying person was present.' "Whether there was a significant possibility that the interviews would not have been admitted had the appellant's true age been known." 'Whether, if the interviews had been excluded, there was a significant possibility of an acquittal.' 'Whether fresh evidence concerning matters not said by the appellant at trial warranted a new trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was under 18 when interviewed, no person required by s.13(1)(a) was present, and the interviews contained significant admissions and material bearing heavily on credibility in a trial that depended on a conflict between the appellant and the other boys. Even if police were misinformed as to his birth date, there was a significant possibility that a trial judge would have rejected the interviews under s.13, and, without them and the associated cross-examination, a significant possibility of acquittal. The conviction could not stand and a new trial was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld' 'Conviction quashed' 'Sentence quashed' 'New trial ordered']