Flowers v The Queen

The applicant, Flowers, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction. The appeal concerned the admissibility of an interview conducted by police with the applicant.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit into evidence an exculpatory interview conducted by police with the applicant. This interview occurred when the applicant was sober and acknowledged the identity of the complainant, despite the applicant having been intoxicated during an earlier conversation with police where he denied such knowledge. The Crown had declined to lead this exculpatory interview at trial.

The Court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence, particularly in the context of admissions and confessions. It noted that while an accused is generally entitled to have exculpatory statements made to police admitted, this right is not absolute and is subject to the rules of evidence, including those concerning relevance and prejudice. The Court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to admit the interview, as the applicant's denial of knowledge when intoxicated was not directly contradicted by the later exculpatory interview, and the Crown was not obliged to lead evidence that might be unhelpful to its case.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.