Doklu v The Queen

The case of Doklu v The Queen involved an appeal against a conviction by the appellant, Doklu, who was convicted of an attempted murder. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence of admissions made by Doklu to police officers should have been admitted. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the admissions were made at a time when Doklu could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence, as required by the Criminal Procedure Act s 281. The court also considered whether there was a reasonable excuse for the police officers not recording the admissions, under Evidence Act s 85, and whether the admissions were made in circumstances where the truth of the admission was unlikely to be adversely affected, under Evidence Act s 90. The court examined whether the trial judge exercised his discretion wrongly by admitting the evidence, and whether any unfairness resulted from this decision.

The court held that the trial judge did not exercise his discretion wrongly in admitting the evidence of the admissions. The court found that at the time of the admissions, Doklu could reasonably have been suspected of having committed an offence, and that there was a reasonable excuse for not recording the admissions. Furthermore, the court determined that the admissions were made in circumstances where the truth of the admission was unlikely to be adversely affected. The court also concluded that there was no unfairness in the admission of the evidence, considering Doklu's physical condition and his capability to understand the questioning. In addition, the court found that the trial judge's direction that a majority verdict was possible in some circumstances did not undermine the effect of the direction concerning the need for a jury to try its utmost to reach a unanimous verdict. The court also noted that the advisability of mentioning the possibility of a majority verdict before it was necessary to do so did not impact the trial's fairness.