Pollard v The Queen

The applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the admissibility of a record of interview admitted into evidence at the trial of the respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around whether this record of interview should have been excluded, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned the construction of sections 464H and 464C of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). Specifically, the applicant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the record of interview, contending that it ought to have been excluded under section 464H. This involved a determination of whether the police complex at St Kilda Road constituted a "different place" from the Frankston CIB police station for the purposes of section 464H.

The applicant's submission was that the trial judge's reasoning, which distinguished between the Frankston CIB and the St Kilda Road complex as separate locations, was flawed. The trial judge had concluded that the transfer of the accused to the St Kilda Road complex was for the legitimate purpose of conducting a video recording of the interview and that this constituted a "new place" for the consideration of section 464H. Consequently, admissions made at St Kilda Road, having been recorded, were deemed admissible, and any failure to comply with section 464H at Frankston CIB did not taint the later recorded interview. The applicant contended that this interpretation of "different place" within section 464H was incorrect and that the illegality of earlier unrecorded admissions at Frankston CIB should have tainted the subsequent recorded interview.