R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 6)

The case involved three defendants, A2, KM, and Vaziri, who were on trial for various criminal charges. The primary dispute revolved around the admissibility of evidence obtained during a police canvass, specifically the answers given by the defendants during questioning. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants objected to the admission of these answers, arguing that they were inadmissible due to the manner in which they were obtained.

The central legal issue was whether the answers given by the defendants during the police canvass were admissible as evidence against them. The court had to determine whether the police procedure followed in obtaining these answers was lawful and whether the answers themselves were relevant and properly obtained. The defendants argued that the police had acted improperly, which could render the evidence inadmissible. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the police had followed proper procedures and that the evidence was relevant and admissible.

The court found that the police had followed appropriate procedures in obtaining the answers from the defendants. The court also determined that the answers were relevant to the charges and were properly admitted as evidence. The objections raised by the defendants regarding the manner of obtaining the answers were not sufficient to exclude the evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the answers were admissible and could be considered by the jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

The court dismissed the objections to the admissibility of the evidence. The answers given by the defendants during the police canvass were deemed admissible and were included in the evidence presented to the jury. The trial proceeded with this evidence being considered alongside other evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence.