P v JC [2018] NSWChC 2

P v JC [2018] NSWChC 2

The admissions were excluded because, having regard to the circumstances in which they were made, it would be unfair to the young person to allow them to be used. The deputy principal interviewed the young person without prior parental involvement or an opportunity for legal advice or another protective support...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding in the Children's Court Concerning Charges Under the Crimes Act 1900 / Defended Hearing, Including Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions, Followed by Verdict
Outcome
Admissions excluded on the voir dire; the young person was found not guilty and the charges were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'unfairness Discretion' 'right to Silence' 'support Person for Young Person' 'intimate Image Offences']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' "children's Criminal Proceedings"] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'unfairness Discretion' 'right to Silence' 'support Person for Young Person' 'intimate Image Offences']

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 Proceeding in the Children's Court Concerning Charges Under the Crimes Act 1900 / Defended Hearing, Including Voir Dire on Admissibility of Admissions, Followed by Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether admissions made by the young person to the deputy principal and to police should be admitted into evidence.' 'Whether, having regard to the circumstances in which the admissions were made, it would be unfair under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1998 to use the evidence against the young person.' 'Whether the deputy principal was an appropriate support person for the police interview after having obtained the original admission and potentially being a prosecution witness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The admissions were excluded because, having regard to the circumstances in which they were made, it would be unfair to the young person to allow them to be used. The deputy principal interviewed the young person without prior parental involvement or an opportunity for legal advice or another protective support person, the police investigation was precipitated by an admission obtained unfairly, the young person was not given the contemplated opportunity to obtain Legal Aid Youth Hotline advice, and the deputy principal was not an appropriate support person in the police interview. Once the admissions were excluded, the prosecution had no further evidence and the charges were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Admissions excluded on the voir dire; the young person was found not guilty and the charges were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Sequence 1 was withdrawn and dismissed.' 'The admissions made to the deputy principal and to police were excluded on the voir dire.' 'The young person was found not guilty.' 'The charges were dismissed.']