McDermott v The King

This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant, Frederick Lincoln McDermott, had been convicted of murder. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of confessional statements made by McDermott to police after his arrest but before he was formally charged. The trial judge, Herron J., admitted the evidence, finding that a proper caution had been administered, McDermott was willing to be questioned, there was no undue pressure, and the questions related to a ten-year-old investigation. The Court of Criminal Appeal, by a majority, upheld this decision.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion to admit the confessional statements, and whether the nature of the police questioning, occurring after arrest and before charge, rendered the statements inadmissible. Specifically, the court considered whether the questioning constituted improper "cross-examination" of an accused in custody, and whether the Judges' Rules, though not binding law, should inform the exercise of discretion regarding the admissibility of such statements.

The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, affirmed the principle that a trial judge possesses a discretion to reject confessional statements if, in all the circumstances, they have been improperly procured by the police, even if not strictly inadmissible under common law or statute. The court noted that the Judges' Rules, while not having the force of law, could serve as criteria for assessing the propriety of police conduct. However, in this instance, the court found that the questioning, which included admissions by McDermott regarding accusations of murder, did not amount to improper cross-examination or otherwise demonstrate impropriety that would necessitate exclusion. The trial judge's findings regarding the voluntary nature of the statements and the absence of undue pressure were accepted.

Special leave to appeal was refused, and the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales was affirmed.