McNeill v The Queen [2008] FCAFC 80

McNeill v The Queen [2008] FCAFC 80

Section 410(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI) was impliedly repealed by ss 85 and 138 of the Evidence Act 2004 (NI), and, in any event, no untrue or wilfully untrue representation was made by the interviewing officers to the appellant; thus, the confession was admissible and not subject to mandatory exclusion....

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction (federal Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Norfolk Island)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Confessions' 'jury Constitution' 'exclusion/discretion of Evidence' 'application of Foreign Rights (nz Bill of Rights)' 'implied Repeal of Statutes' 'appellate Review of Criminal Convictions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'procedure'] ['admissibility of Confessions' 'jury Constitution' 'exclusion/discretion of Evidence' 'application of Foreign Rights (nz Bill of Rights)' 'implied Repeal of Statutes' 'appellate Review of Criminal Convictions']

Source-derived case record

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 / Appeal From Conviction (federal Court of Australia on Appeal From Supreme Court of Norfolk Island)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the record of interview and handwritten statement were inadmissible as induced by untrue representation under s 410 Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI)' 'Whether s 410(1)(a) was impliedly repealed by Evidence Act 2004 (NI)' 'Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of confession under ss 85, 90, 138 Evidence Act 2004 (NI)' 'Whether the trial judge erred in jury procedure by allowing trial with less than 12 jurors under Juries Act 1960 (NI)' 'Whether exclusion of expert evidence required re-examination of confession admissibility' 'Whether trial judge gave appropriate directions to jury on forensic/intermediate evidence, lies, and unsworn statement under Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI)' 'Whether further evidence should be received on appeal' 'Whether the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 410(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Act 1960 (NI) was impliedly repealed by ss 85 and 138 of the Evidence Act 2004 (NI), and, in any event, no untrue or wilfully untrue representation was made by the interviewing officers to the appellant; thus, the confession was admissible and not subject to mandatory exclusion. The trial judge correctly admitted the confession, exercised appropriate discretion under relevant statutory provisions, constituted the jury lawfully, and gave proper jury directions. No grounds for appellate intervention or miscarriage of justice were made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ["The appellant's application for the Court to receive further evidence pursuant to s 27 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) be refused." 'The appeal be dismissed.']