B (A Child) v Potts

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Anthony Michael Potts. The applicant sought to challenge the admissibility of confessional material obtained during police questioning. The core of the dispute revolved around the nature of the questions asked by the police and their impact on the reliability of the applicant's statements, particularly in light of his alleged disability.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the use of leading questions by police, in conjunction with the applicant's disability, rendered the confessional material inadmissible. The applicant argued that the form of questioning amounted to cross-examination and, when combined with his vulnerability, created a situation of unfairness that should have led to the exclusion of the evidence. This raised questions about the extent to which an accused person is entitled to judicial protection from leading questions during police interviews.

The applicant's argument drew upon established authorities, including *Van der Meer* and *R v Lee*. From *Van der Meer*, the principle was invoked that an accused person should not be subjected to leading questions that amount to cross-examination. *R v Lee* provided justification for a judicial discretion to exclude evidence where an over-zealous interviewer, despite honest intentions, might obtain unreliable statements due to their position of superiority. The applicant contended that the learned trial judge erred in treating the leading nature of the questions as merely going to the weight of the evidence, rather than an issue of admissibility, especially when considered alongside the applicant's disability. The Court was also referred to *Sinclair's* case concerning the reliability of material from persons with defective intellect.