Nicholls v The Queen [2005] HCA 1

Nicholls v The Queen [2005] HCA 1

In the case of Nicholls, evidence of the defence witness Ross was properly excluded as the statutory and procedural requirements for its admission (including laying a foundation in cross-examination and identifying specific occasions per s 21 Evidence Act 1906 (WA)) were not met, and as such, the collateral evidence rule was not displaced. In the case of Coates, the appeal succeeded as off-video admissions made during police interview breaks were wrongfully admitted; there was no reasonable excuse under s 570D of the Criminal Code (WA) for failing to videotape, and the police's procedural conduct (lack of contemporaneous notes, no effort to confirm admissions on video) rendered the...

Parties
Appellant: Thomas Nicholls; Appellant: Martin Graeme Coates; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal by Nicholls dismissed; appeal by Coates allowed.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Admissions, Prior Inconsistent Statements, Collateral Evidence Rule, Jury Directions, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Admissions Prior Inconsistent Statements Collateral Evidence Rule Jury Directions Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Nicholls

Appellant

Martin Graeme Coates

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of admissions made off-video during police interviews is admissible absent videotaping under s 570D of the Criminal Code (WA)
  2. 2 Whether evidence of prior inconsistent statements by a key Crown witness is admissible as an exception to the collateral evidence rule (bias/corruption)
  3. 3 Whether jury directions about unrecorded admissions and police perjury accorded with requirements (McKinney direction)

Ratio Decidendi

In the case of Nicholls, evidence of the defence witness Ross was properly excluded as the statutory and procedural requirements for its admission (including laying a foundation in cross-examination and identifying specific occasions per s 21 Evidence Act 1906 (WA)) were not met, and as such, the collateral evidence rule was not displaced. In the case of Coates, the appeal succeeded as off-video admissions made during police interview breaks were wrongfully admitted; there was no reasonable excuse under s 570D of the Criminal Code (WA) for failing to videotape, and the police's procedural conduct (lack of contemporaneous notes, no effort to confirm admissions on video) rendered the...

Court Disposition

Appeal by Nicholls dismissed; appeal by Coates allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal by Nicholls dismissed.
  • Appeal by Coates allowed.