13 Jan 2026
Although it could not be excluded that some promises may have been made, the judge was satisfied on credibility, the presence of proper cautions, prior solicitor advice, the exculpatory nature of the account and the defendant's conduct showed his will was not overcome; therefore the interviews and re-enactment statements were voluntary and admissible.
1 Dec 2020
Trial judge accepted prosecution witnesses and rejected the accused's testimony as incredible; on the evidence the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the oral admission, notebook entries, post‑record and video recorded interview were voluntary and not the product of inducement, threat or oppression, and the court declined to exercise its discretion to exclude them; accordingly the contested items were admissible.
16 Apr 2018
On the facts the court was satisfied police were conducting general inquiries with an open mind and had not at that stage gathered reasonable grounds to suspect the 1st defendant; officers denied any oppressive conduct, the statement was read and explained to her despite her limited ability to read traditional Chinese, and there was no basis to exclude it for unfairness. Therefore the statement dated 12 August 2015 was voluntary and admissible.
23 May 2014
The Court held the trial judge erred by treating the applicant's signature on the post-record as an admission that drugs were found on his person and by drawing adverse inferences from his exercise of the right to silence and from possession of two phones without proper cross-examination; those material irregularities rendered the conviction unsafe and required quashing, with a retrial ordered.
28 Jun 2010
Once the applicant volunteered that he had engaged in trafficking the police should have administered a fresh caution before pursuing extensive questions about trafficking; failure to do so deprived the applicant of an informed choice whether to remain silent in relation to a materially more serious offence, the trial judge therefore mis-exercised his discretion in admitting the detailed admissions, and the conviction based on that material was quashed; no retrial ordered as proper exercise of discretion would likely have excluded the evidence.
8 Jun 2001
Appeal allowed because the magistrate failed to address the voluntariness of contested admissions and did not allow the parties to argue that issue, a procedural flaw that made the conviction unsafe and required quashing.
12 Jul 1985
There were no material differences from The Queen v. Ma Kui; the constable effectively combined a request for explanation under s106(1) with an accusation of attempted theft thereby engaging the suspect's right to silence; where an officer suspects a separate offence he should charge for that offence rather than seek an explanatory answer under the loitering provision, and accordingly the appellant was entitled to remain silent and the loitering conviction must be quashed.
30 Dec 1969
The Full Court found the trial judge's express finding that the cautioned written statement was voluntary was sufficient on the facts; no evidence of active inducement, threat or oppressive questioning was proven and any mere technical failure to refer explicitly to the Judges' Rules did not render the admissibility ruling defective. The appeal was dismissed and the statement was properly admitted.