R v Frangulis [2006] NSWCCA 363

R v Frangulis [2006] NSWCCA 363

The trial judge did not err in excluding the respondent's statement to Detective Thornton: it was open on the evidence to find that Detective Thornton suspected, or that the respondent could reasonably have been suspected, of involvement in the deliberately lit fire, and no reasonable excuse for the absence of a tape recording arose. However, the trial judge erred in excluding the admissions to Mr King under s90 of the Evidence Act: even accepting that Mr King acted on behalf of police as well as the insurer and concealed that role, nothing suggested the respondent was led to believe his answers could not be used in evidence, and it was not unfair to use the admissions at trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S5 F(3 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act Against Evidentiary Rulings Excluding Admissions / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Voir Dire Ruling Before Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, matter remitted to District Court.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'official Questioning' 'tape Recording of Admissions Under S281 of the Criminal Procedure Act' 'unfairness Discretion Under S90 of the Evidence Act' 'admissions to Insurance Investigator Acting on Behalf of Police']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'official Questioning' 'tape Recording of Admissions Under S281 of the Criminal Procedure Act' 'unfairness Discretion Under S90 of the Evidence Act' 'admissions to Insurance Investigator Acting on Behalf of Police']

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

Crown Appeal Under S5 F(3 A) of the Criminal Appeal Act Against Evidentiary Rulings Excluding Admissions / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Voir Dire Ruling Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's statement to Detective Sergeant Thornton was inadmissible because s281 of the Criminal Procedure Act applied and no tape recording was available." 'Whether, at the time of the statement, the respondent was or could reasonably have been suspected by an investigating official of having committed an offence.' 'Whether admissions made to insurance investigator Mr King should be excluded under s90 of the Evidence Act as unfair, given his role on behalf of the insurer and police and his failure to disclose that role or caution the respondent.' 'Whether the Crown appeal should be allowed in relation to the rejected evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in excluding the respondent's statement to Detective Thornton: it was open on the evidence to find that Detective Thornton suspected, or that the respondent could reasonably have been suspected, of involvement in the deliberately lit fire, and no reasonable excuse for the absence of a tape recording arose. However, the trial judge erred in excluding the admissions to Mr King under s90 of the Evidence Act: even accepting that Mr King acted on behalf of police as well as the insurer and concealed that role, nothing suggested the respondent was led to believe his answers could not be used in evidence, and it was not unfair to use the admissions at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, matter remitted to District Court.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'Matter remitted to the District Court to be dealt with in accordance with these reasons.']