Director of Public Prosecutions v Natale (Ruling)

The case involves the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuting Natale on charges of incitement to murder, extortion with a threat to kill, and threatening to kill. Natale, an elderly Italian migrant with limited English proficiency, was deemed unfit to plead. A special hearing was subsequently held to address the charges. Natale applied for the exclusion of admissions he made regarding earlier uncharged acts, arguing that the evidence was obtained unfairly. The admissions were made during an interview without an interpreter present. The central legal issues were whether it was unfair to use the admissions against Natale in the special hearing, if the circumstances of obtaining the evidence would result in an unfair forensic advantage, whether the evidence was improperly or unlawfully obtained, and if the lack of an interpreter during the interview constituted a violation of Natale's rights and a discriminatory failure by the police.

The court considered whether the admissions were obtained in violation of Natale's right to an interpreter, thus rendering them improperly or unlawfully obtained. It found that the police had an obligation to ensure an interpreter was present and to defer the interview until one was available. The absence of an interpreter during the interview was seen as a breach of Natale's right to equal and effective protection of the law, and potentially discriminatory. The court exercised its discretion under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to exclude evidence obtained in breach of the accused's human rights. It found that the admissions were improperly obtained, given the circumstances of the interview, and thus should be excluded from the special hearing.

Given the findings, the court ordered that Natale's admissions regarding the earlier uncharged acts be excluded from evidence in the special hearing. This decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the rights of defendants, particularly those with limited language proficiency, are upheld to prevent unfair trial outcomes. The court's ruling highlighted the necessity for police to provide interpreters in interviews with non-English speaking suspects to ensure the fairness and integrity of the legal process.