R v Aujla
[2012] VSC 213
•18 May 2012
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 0146 of 2011
No. 0147 of 2011
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| SIMARPAL AUJLA |
| and |
| AMANDEEP SINGH |
---
JUDGE: | T FORREST J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATES OF HEARING: | 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16 May 2012 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 18 May 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | R v Aujla & anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VSC 213 | |
---
EVIDENCE – Record of interview – Caution and rights – Voluntariness – Whether accused person understood caution and rights – Foreign language – Interpreter – Sections 84 and 138 of the Evidence Act 2008.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Peter Rose SC Raelene Sharp | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused Mr Aujla | Campbell Thomson | Emma Turnbull Criminal Lawyers |
| For the Accused Mr Singh | Peter Matthews | Marich Legal |
HIS HONOUR:
Background
Two balaclava-clad men broke into a house in Centre Road, Narre Warren South at about 4.30am on 7 December 2010. They were carrying rolls of silver duct tape and batons. They entered the main bedroom and proceeded to beat Parmjit Singh (“Parmjit”) and his wife Navjot Kaur about the head and body. The intruders placed towels over the heads of Parmjit and his wife and tied their legs together with silver duct tape. Parmjit managed to escape. The intruders fled. It will not be in dispute at trial that Parmjit sustained serious lacerations to his head and lost a large quantity of blood.
The Crown case is that the two accused, Simarpal Aujla and Amandeep Singh (“Amandeep”), conspired to kidnap Parmjit and hold him to ransom. There is as yet untested evidence that the accused persons, together with, at times, two others, conducted surveillance on Parmjit’s house over several months. On the evening of 6 December 2010, two men of Indian or Pakistani appearance were observed sitting in a grassy reserve which bordered Centre Road. There is evidence also that Amandeep’s van was retrieved in the afternoon of 7 December 2010 from a location near this reserve. In it was a bag containing a roll of silver duct tape. A witness, Jagman Deol, sets out in a series of statements various conversations he participated in with both accused and with each of them individually. If accepted, these conversations are proof of the agreement to kidnap Parmjit.
This application
Counsel for Amandeep argues that two records of interview conducted with his client ought be excluded from evidence at trial. This submission is put in two ways:
(a)the interviews are rendered inadmissible by the operation of s 84 of the Evidence Act 2008 (“the Act”);
(b)I ought exclude the interview in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon me by s 138 of the Act.
Legal principles
There is no dispute about the legal principles that I am required to apply – the success of the application depends upon factual findings. For clarity, I shall set out in short compass the relevant legal principles.
Section 84 (Voluntariness)
(i) Once the issue of voluntariness is raised the onus rests with the prosecution to demonstrate that the admissions[1] were not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct or a threat of that kind.
In this case the focus has been on the description “oppressive”.
(ii) Oppressive conduct is not limited to physical or threatened physical conduct. It may involve mental or psychological pressure and may also involve a combination of factors.[2]
(iii) Causation is critical however. Perceived psychological pressure that is either predicament related, or related to subjective factors peculiar to the suspect being interviewed cannot be the product of oppressive conduct.[3]
Section 138
(i) The onus rests with the accused to demonstrate that the admissions were improperly or illegally obtained.
(ii) Should the accused demonstrate this the onus shifts to the prosecution to persuade the court that the evidence should be admitted.[4]
(iii) Section 138 modifies the common law public policy exclusionary discretion set out in Bunning v Cross[5] The court must not admit improperly or illegally obtained evidence, or evidence obtained as a result of improper or illegal conduct unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting the evidence.
[1]I accept that the interview contains admissions as defined in the Act’s dictionary. Mr Singh places himself, his van and the co-accused in an area proximate to the crime scene on the night/early morning of the crime alleged.
[2]Higgins v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 56 at [26].
[3]See for example The Queen v Tang [2010] VSC 578.
[4]Robinson v Woolworths (2005) A Crim R 546; R (C’th) v Petradias (No 8) (2007) A Crim R 417.
[5]Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54.
The accused’s factual contentions
D/Sgt Rumble and DSC Measham attended at 3/3 Browning Avenue in Clayton at about 11.00pm on 7 December 2010. Amandeep Singh lived there with his wife. His unit and van were searched. He was arrested and taken to the Narre Warren Police Station where he was, at various times, interviewed or held in the cells. He makes the following complaints about the arrest and his subsequent time in police custody. I shall also set out (in shorthand form) the response to those complaints.
(a)At his unit he was handcuffed very tightly from behind. Despite his complaints he remained so handcuffed until his arrival at the police station at about 12.25am on 8 December 2010. The police deny that Amandeep was handcuffed at all.
(b)Whilst being taken to the police station in a police car the taller of the two detectives:
(i)said to him words to the effect of ‘long jail’, ‘tell’ or ‘tell the truth’, and ‘fuck’ or ‘fucken’ in connection with ‘Indian.’
(ii)made a gesture that involved clenching his fists and crossing his wrists.[6]
Both police deny that any such conversation or gesture occurred.
(c)After being placed in an interview room, the same detective repeated the “long jail” remarks in an angry voice. This is denied by police.
(d)These sorts of remarks were repeated when he was next placed in an interview room. This was denied by police.
(e)He was placed in a cell and held for many hours before an interview was carried out. The cell was cold and his request for a blanket was refused. This is denied by police.
(f)He was quarantined from receiving legal advice and his solicitor was deflected from speaking to him at about 8.00am on 8 December 2010. The police say he was offered the option of speaking to her but declined the offer.
(g)The Punjabi interpreter supplied for the first interview was inadequate and he (the accused) did not understand the caution given or the rights offered. The prosecution deny this and submit the video of the interview speaks for itself.
[6]This is sometimes referred to in popular culture as the jail house salute.
I have prepared a time line of events from the time of arrest until his remand into custody at 4.40pm. This is annexure 1 to this ruling. It will be apparent from it that the accused arrived at Narre Warren Police Station at 12.25am, was placed immediately in an interview room and an interview was attempted at about 1.10am. This interview was aborted when the police realised that the Punjabi interpreter was Simarpal Aujla’s father. Simarpal Aujla is the co-accused. The investigation proceeded, the accused was placed in a holding cell and at about 8.00am, or a little after, a further interview was conducted with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter, Sarabjeet Singh. This interview concluded at between 9.09am and 9.14am. I shall refer to it as Interview No 1. Interview No 2 commenced shortly after 9.30am and concluded nine minutes later. The accused was placed in the cells until 1.25pm or 1.30pm. In a short interview (Interview No 3) he agreed to make a signed statement and over the next hour this was prepared and signed (“the statement”). He was again placed in the cells until another short interview (five minutes) was conducted at shortly after 3.50pm. This is Interview No 4.
The prosecution do not seek to lead Interviews No 3 and 4. Thus this application was confined to Interviews No 1 and 2. Of these, Interview No 1 is the substantial interview. Interview No 2 is simply concerned with the procedures relating to the taking of DNA and fingerprint samples. Interviews No 3 and 4 are only peripherally relevant to this application.
In substance, the accused provided an exculpatory account in Interview No 1. He denied that he was involved in any aggravated burglary, attempted abduction or assaults at a house in Centre Road, Narre Warren South. He stated that he had been drinking with the co-accused and had left the co-accused’s house to purchase some food. His van developed battery trouble near a park in Centre Road and broke down. He called Aujla who drove to the park. He (Amandeep Singh) was feeling ill from the drinking and sat on a park bench. Aujla arrived, they spoke and then Aujla left to purchase food. He remained in the park until Aujla returned. They sat in the park together for a few minutes and then left together in Aujla’s Holden Caprice. The van was left at the park. They returned to Aujla’s house where he stayed overnight. When he returned home, he agreed that he told his wife that he had bashed someone the night before. He was joking when he told her this.
Mr Singh’s credibility as a witness
My assessment of Mr Singh’s allegations depends, to a large extent, upon my assessment of him as a witness. It is not easy giving evidence in any proceeding. It is harder giving evidence in a criminal proceeding and harder again when a witness is giving evidence in his own defence. When proceedings are conducted in a foreign language and a full understanding of questions asked and answers given depends on the adequacy of an interpreter, then it can be readily understood that Mr Singh’s journey into the witness box was a difficult one. My assessment of him as a witness must take into account these difficulties and it does.
Even after taking these factors into account, I am of the view that Mr Singh was a particularly unsatisfactory witness and I am unable to accept his word on significant issues except where supported by other evidence. I do not propose to recite every example of what I consider to be evasive, dishonest or disingenuous evidence from Mr Singh, but I will refer to a few examples:
(a)in evidence-in-chief Mr Singh said that when he came to Australia three years ago he did not “know English at all”.[7] He had never been to an English speaking country before Australia and English was not spoken in his native Punjab. He said that when police arrived at his house he said “No English”.[8] In cross-examination, it emerged that the last two years of his university degree[9] were taught in English at the Punjab Technical University and that he had completed all but one subject. He said that he would rarely attend these classes. He said the exams were in English and that he passed a number of those exams but only did so by cheating.[10] I accept the police evidence that Mr Singh spoke to them in English at his home. In Mr Rumble’s notes there is recorded a conversation with the accused during which the embryo of the exculpatory account set out in Interview No 1 appears. This information, assuming the note is genuine, can only have come from Mr Singh and can only have been spoken in English as there was no interpreter present. As I have said, I accept the evidence of DS Rumble that this conversation occurred and I accept that this note of it is genuine.[11] I formed the view that Mr Singh actively tried to mislead me about his true ability with the English language.
[7]T 138.
[8]T 141.
[9]Bachelor of Computer Applications (T 137).
[10]T 178.
[11]Exhibit 7.
(b)Mr Singh maintained that he could not speak Hindi, and thus did not understand the cautions and rights offered to him in Interviews No 3 and 4:
“You can speak Hindi, can’t you?---No.” (T 174)
He said that in those interviews he mostly would speak in Punjabi, with the odd Hindi word and often answered by simply nodding his head. Mr Pradham, the Hindi interpreter for Mr Singh in Interviews No 3 and 4 said that he spoke Hindi with the defendant who responded in Hindi.[12] I have viewed these interviews. Mr Singh appears to understand the interpreted questions and to answer them responsively and comprehensively.[13]
[12]T 344.
[13]See also the evidence of Mr Sidhu, T 227.
An interpreter called by the defence Mr Sidhu stated that the accused spoke Hindi throughout Interview No 3. I regard the accused’s assertion that he did not speak Hindi as false.
(c) The following exchange speaks for itself:
In India, Hindi is widely spoken isn’t it?---Yes, it is, but not in the Punjab.
And English is the educational language isn’t it?---I don’t know. In our schools we only speak Punjabi.
In the universities courses are taught in English aren’t they?---Maybe, but I don’t know.
Can you operate a computer?---No.
HIS HONOUR: What was your degree in?---Computers.
Making what allowance I can for the difficulties I have referred to a little earlier, I am of the view that Mr Singh’s evidence was most unsatisfactory. I consider that he gave answers that would suit his cause regardless of whether or not those answers bear any semblance of truth whatsoever.
Factual findings
Handcuffed or not
I am satisfied, on balance, that the accused was not handcuffed at his unit or during the subsequent journey to Narre Warren Police Station. I regarded the evidence of Detectives Rumble and Measham as balanced and moderate on this issue. For reasons that I have spelt out, I was unimpressed by Mr Singh’s credibility as a witness. When the accused arrived at the police station another detective observed that he was not handcuffed.[14] Mr Matthews, who appears for the accused Amandeep Singh, submitted that it was inherently likely, given the nature of the allegations, that he would have been restrained in some way, and the obvious way was by handcuffs. I accept that this was certainly an option open to the arresting police, and probably would have been appropriate had they so chosen but I regard the evidence of Detectives Rumble and Measham on this issue as consistent, balanced and persuasive. He was not handcuffed because there was no need to. He was cooperative and placid.
[14]Detective Morgan T 350.
Were a caution and rights administered at the accused’s house? Was it understood?
I accept that the accused was cautioned and advised of his rights at his house. I am unable to say whether and to what extent he understood those rights. Whilst both Detectives Rumble and Measham were of the view that the accused understood them when they spoke to him in English, and there is sound evidence that he did communicate to Detective Rumble in English, the fact is that no interpreter was present, on any view English is not Mr Singh’s first language, and at least one police officer thought his English was poor.
I am unable to conclude that he did properly understand the caution and rights administered to him at his house. Little turns on this however.
The aborted interview
At about 1.10am, it was discovered that the Punjabi interpreter, Mr ManjitAujla, was the father of the co-accused. Detectives Morgan and Measham who were to conduct this interview both say the accused was cautioned and advised of his rights with the assistance of Mr Aujla shortly before Mr Aujla’s identity was discovered. The accused and Mr Aujla say that this process did not occur. In one sense, this argument is a non-event because the interview did not proceed at that stage. Mr Matthews however, seeks to use it in another way. He submits I ought find that the evidence given by the police on this issue is wilfully false and that it has ramifications for their credit generally and for their preparedness to act in the way the accused suggests.[15] On balance, I am satisfied that the accused was administered a caution and his rights were interpreted by Mr Aujla shortly before the interview commenced. I consider Detectives Morgan and Measham were sound witnesses. Both made notes of the caution and rights being given at this stage.[16] I consider that these notes seem to have been created in a logical order and that there is no evidence of any subsequent insertion. Further, during the recorded Interview No 1 at Question 6 Detective Morgan asked the accused if he had earlier been cautioned and given his rights at 1.05am that morning but with a different interpreter.[17] The accused answered in English “Yes”. The fact that Detective Morgan put this question, on this issue, is of as much evidentiary value as Mr Singh’s response.
[15]That is to handcuff him unnecessarily tightly, to threaten and abuse him, to quarantine him from legal advice and to hold him in custody for a protracted period.
[16]Exhibit C page 48; Exhibit 8 page 244; page 352.
[17]Interview No 1 Q 6. Deps pg 643.
Against this is the evidence of the accused and the evidence of Mr ManjitAujla. Mr Aujla appeared to be relying on memory only and Mr Singh’s evidence is viewed in the light of my findings on his credibility and in the light of his previous inconsistent statement at question 6 of Interview No 1. I prefer the evidence of the police on this issue which is not just derived memory but also from (I find) contemporaneously taken notes, and the recorded question 6 that I have just referred to. I find that the caution was given and the rights administered to Mr Singh at about 1.10am through Mr Aujla. It follows that this finding does not impact adversely on the credit of the two detectives.
Threats and gestures
The evidence of threats, constituted by words such as ‘long jail’, or ‘tell the truth’, and ‘fuck(en) Indian(s)’ comes solely from Mr Singh. I have already made observations about my view of his credibility as a witness. Detectives Measham, Rumble and Morgan were united in testifying that no threats or gestures were made at any time. I accept this evidence. I am, to some extent, fortified in this conclusion by the fact that between 1.35am and 7.50am five welfare checks were made of the accused in custody.[18] There is no record of any complaint made by the accused.
[18]Exhibit 6, Attendance summary.
Was Mr Singh quarantined form legal advice?
As I have observed earlier, the substantial interview, Interview No 1 commenced either at a shortly after 8.00am. The timing is of some significance to this issue.
Ms Morris, a solicitor from Mr Stary’s office, gave evidence that she spoke to Detective Morgan at 7.45am and confirmed that the accused was in custody. Morgan advised her that an interpreter was on the way. I accept this evidence. Her notes read that at 8.05am she made another call. She confirmed that an interpreter was then present. She noted that the police officer was hesitant to interrupt the record of interview. She advised that she wished the interview to be suspended at this point in order to confirm that Mr Singh was aware of his rights and that a lawyer was on the phone willing to speak to him.
The officer, whom Ms Morris could not name, returned to the telephone and informed her that he had suspended the record of interview and that Mr Singh did not wish to speak to a lawyer.
Mr Singh stated in evidence that he was not told of Ms Morris’ offer to speak to him.
In substance, the defence submission is that the videoed Interview No 1 commenced at 8.00am and the video shows no such suspension shortly after its commencement, or at any time during it. It follows, so the submission goes, that Ms Morris’ offer of legal assistance was simply not put to Mr Singh. It is clear from the evidence that Ms Morris spoke to Detective Rumble. He stated that he received a phone call from Ms Morris. His notes read:
S/T phone Solicitor Clair MORRIS 0419933822. Does Mandeep Singh require her
Interrupt I/V S/T MEASHAM
Via interpreter. Declined solicitor.
Mr Rumble’s notes do not disclose a time for this.
In evidence, Mr Rumble stated that he could not remember the exact time, but he received a phone call in the terms set out above. He said “so I’ve made those enquiries to see if Mr Singh wanted any legal assistance and that was declined”.[19]
[19]T 232-233.
He said he remembered going into the interview room, using the interpreter to ask Mr Singh if he wished to speak to a solicitor “and he declined”.[20]
[20]T 247.
Detectives Measham and Morgan stated that they recalled Mr Rumble entering the interview room and advising Mr Singh that a solicitor was available on the telephone.[21] Neither made a note of this.
[21]Measham T 275; 283-4; Morgan T 355, T 371-2.
I consider the most likely explanation to be that Mr Rumble did enter the interview room very shortly before the taped interview itself commenced and made the offer, which was declined. Ms Morris’ time of 8.05am came from her digital oven clock. Detective Morgan’s time of interview commencement came from his watch. The video of interview also has the time recorded on the tape. By this measure the interview commenced at 8.04am.
The alternatives are these:
1.Detective Rumble pretended to Ms Morris that he went to the interview room when he did not, lied to her about the accused declining her offer, made a false note and lied to this Court, as did Detectives Morgan and Measham; or
2.Detective Rumble did convey the declined offer very shortly before the recorded interview commenced. His note is accurate and he, Measham and Morgan are truthful when they say the offer was conveyed.
I consider that it is more likely that either the times of Ms Morris or Mr Morgan or both are out by a little than the alternative, which involves three police officers committing perjury.
I am fortified in this conclusion by the fact that on any view only a few minutes later the accused was cautioned and given his rights in the recorded interview. I am satisfied he understood them for reasons which I will explain shortly and that he declined to exercise them.
As a matter of completeness I ought observe that I understood the interpreter, Mr Sarabjeet Singh, to be saying that he could not remember events just before or at the commencement of the interview.[22]
[22]T 340.
Did Mr Singh understand his caution, rights and general questioning in Interviews No 1 and 2?
I am positively satisfied that the accused understood the caution, rights and general questioning in Interviews No 1 and 2. I have viewed the DVD of these interviews and my clear impression is that the accused understood what was interpreted and responded lucidly to police questions. This is only an impression of course, and I am relying to a large extent on the accuracy of the interpretation for this impression.
The caution and rights in both interviews were correctly put in English by Detective Morgan. The interpreter, Sarabjeet Singh, spoke Punjabi to the accused. His evidence was that he interpreted with care and that the accused understood him and he understood the accused. He said he and the accused had no difficulty in conversing in the Punjabi language.[23]
[23]T 333.
Mr Sidhu, an interpreter called by the defence, set out in documentary form his translations of the rights and cautions administered in Interviews No 1 and 2.[24] I regard those translations as confirmatory of Sarabjeet Singh’s evidence.
[24]Exhibit B1 and B2.
Beyond the cautions, the overall content of answers given by the accused, particularly in Interview No 1, demonstrate, powerfully in my view, that he had little difficulty in understanding the questions put and responding to them. I reject the accused’s assertion that he just said yes to everything the police put to him.[25] His answers were at times detailed, and his account was, after all, exculpatory and consistent with the version he had initially given to Detective Rumble at his house.
[25]T 178-179.
For the same reasons I reject the assertion made by the accused that he did not sufficiently understand Sarabjeet Singh because they spoke different Punjabi dialects. Sarabjeet Singh said the accused spoke general Punjabi.[26] Mr Sidhu confirmed that people from one region of the Punjab would understand people from another region.[27] Mr Aujla, whilst confirming there were small dialect differences said that “everybody understands”.[28]
[26]T 339.
[27]T 225.
[28]T 328.
In Interview No 2 the following exchange occurs:
Q. 229 Okay. I intend to interview you in relation to aggravated burglary and serious assault. Before continuing, I must inform you that you do not have to say or do anything, but any-, but anything you say or do may be given in evidence. Do you understand that?
(Through interpreter)
A. Yes.
Q. 230I must also inform you of your rights. You have the right to communicate with, or attempt to communicate with, a friend or relative to inform that person of your whereabouts. You have the right to communicate with, or attempt to communicate with, a legal practitioner. If you are not a citizen or permanent resident of Australia, you have the right to communicate with, or attempt to communicate with – with the consular office of the country of which you are a citizen. Do you understand these rights?
A. Yes.
(Suspect)
Yes.
Q. 231Okay. Remember what we talked about, just speaking up clearly.
A. Yes.
Q. 232Thank you. Do you wish to exercise any of these rights before the interview proceeds?
(Through interpreter)
A. I want to speak to my wife – after – after the interview.
In relation to Q & A 232, the DVD footage demonstrates that after the phrase “I want to speak to my wife” is interpreted into English, the accused himself adds the word “after” in English and then the interpreter completes the answer. This suggests to me that the accused knew what his rights were and when he wished to exercise one of them.
I am left in no doubt that the accused understood his rights, his caution and all questions that were put to him in Interviews No 1 and 2.
The accused’s stay in Narre Warren Police Station
I refer to the timeline annexed to this ruling. The accused was taken into custody at about midnight on 7 December 2010 and brought before a bail justice at 4.35pm on 8 December 2010. I saw nothing in the DVD footage of the interview which suggested that the accused was unduly tired during Interviews No 1 and 2 which occurred over about a two hour period commencing approximately eight hours after the accused was arrested. Given the difficulty in obtaining an interpreter and the ongoing nature of a very serious investigation I see nothing unreasonable in this delay.
The subsequent delay was, to some extent, occasioned by the police desire to have Mr Singh make and sign a statement to the effect of his interview answers. This was unnecessary and misguided in my view and resulted in the accused’s appearance before a bail justice being delayed. The Attendance Summary demonstrates that during this period (which is after the impugned interviews have been held) he was moved to a holding cell, provided with a blanket and his welfare was checked on several occasions. I am not satisfied that this delay was intended to inconvenience the accused and in the overall scheme of events I consider it to be of little importance. This delay occurred, of course, after the Interviews No 1 and 2 were conducted and it was pressed faintly in Mr Matthews’ final submissions.
Conclusions
Section 84
If the accused’s evidence is accepted then the issue of voluntariness is raised and the onus shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate that the submissions were not influenced by violence, oppression, inhuman or degrading conduct or threat of that kind.
It will be clear from what I have said that I have grave difficulty accepting the accused’s account. For present purposes I shall proceed on the basis that the issue of voluntariness is raised and that the onus has shifted to the prosecution in the way I have just outlined. I am satisfied, for the reasons that I have set out, that the admissions made by the accused were not influenced by any violent, oppressive, degrading or inhuman conduct or threats of same by any police officer.
Accordingly, the application made under s 84 fails.
Section 138
I am of the view that the admissions made by the accused in Interviews No 1 and 2 were not improperly or illegally obtained, again for the reasons I have set out in this ruling. Accordingly, s 138 is not engaged, in my view, and the application made under this section fails.
ANNEXURE 1
Timeline of events relating to Amandeep SINGH’s arrest, interviews and remand
| Time | Event | Evidence |
| 7 Dec 2010 | ||
| Circa 11.00pm | Det Sgt RUMBLE and DSC MEASHAM attend at 3/3 Browning Ave, Clayton and speak to Amandeep SINGH. | RUMBLE: T251:20 – T252:2 MEASHAM T287:26 – T287:28 Exhibit C |
| DSC MEASHAM, in the company of Det Sgt RUMBLE and Amrijot DHILLON, placed Mr SINGH under arrest and administered the caution and rights in English. | MEASHAM: T269:11 – T269:17 Exhibit C | |
| 8 Dec 2010 | ||
| 12.05am | DSC MEASHAM, Det Sgt RUMBLE and Mr SINGH leave 3/3 Browning Ave, Clayton. | RUMBLE: T255:23 – T255:24 Exhibit 7 |
| 12.25am | Mr SINGH arrives at Narre Warren Police Station. Accused immediately put in an interview room. | RUMBLE: T255:25 – T255:26, T232:18 – T232:19 Exhibit 7 MEASHAM T272:4 – T272:7 |
| 1.00am | DSC MORGAN attempts to have a conversation with Mr SINGH, but Mr SINGH appeared to have little understanding of English. | Statement of MORGAN (p300 deps) Exhibit 8 |
| 1.10am | Manjit AUJLA attends interview room to interpret. Caution and rights given to SINGH by interpreter prior to interview commencing. Police realise Mr AUJLA is the father of Simarpal AUJLA (co-accused) and the interview does not take place. Mr AUJLA Snr denies that he interpreted the caution and rights. | MEASHAM: T272:11 – T272:17 Exhibit C MORGAN: T352:7 – T352:12 Exhibit 8 AUJLA: T327:3 – T327:8 |
| 1.25am | Arrival check conducted of Mr SINGH. No visible injuries or signs of mental impairment. | Exhibit 6 |
| 1.30am | Mr SINGH placed in holding cell while enquiries for new interpreter are made. | MORGAN: T353:21 – T353:26 Exhibit 8 |
| 1.35am | Initial supervisor check of Mr SINGH. No visible signs of injury or complaint. | Exhibit 6 |
| 3.40am | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. No complaints. It was noted “Interpreter not available until am 8/12/10, to be held until then.” | Exhibit 6 |
| 7.15am | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. No visible signs of injury or complaints. | Exhibit 6 |
| 7.25am | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. No visible signs of injury or complaints. It was noted “Breakfast given.” | Exhibit 6 |
| 7.50am | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. No visible signs of injury or complaints. | Exhibit 6 |
| 8.00am (DSC MORGAN’s watch) 8.04am (DVD clock) | First recorded interview commences between DSC MORGAN, DSC MEASHAM and Mr SINGH. Sarabjit SINGH present in interview and interpreted for Mr SINGH in Punjabi. | Exhibit A Exhibit B1 S. SINGH: T332:29 – T333:5 |
| 8.05am (MORRIS’s oven) | Ms MORRIS calls Narre Warren Police Station and asks to speak to Mr SINGH. Det Sgt RUMBLE attends interview room, advises Mr SINGH that a solicitor is on the phone, and through the interpreter Mr SINGH declines to speak to Ms MORRIS. | MORRIS: T198:7 – T198:20 RUMBLE: T232:24 – T233:23, T245:1 – T249:1 Exhibit 7 MEASHAM: T275:10 – T275:21 MORGAN: T355:8 – T355:28, T371:21 – T372:16 |
| 9.09am (DSC MORGAN’s watch) 9.14am (DVD clock) | First recorded interview concluded. | Notes of J. MORGAN (Ex 8 p 245) DVD recording of interview (Ex A) |
| 9.31am (DSC MORGAN’s watch) 9.36am (DVD clock) | Second recorded interview commenced. between DSC MORGAN, DSC MEASHAM and Mr SINGH. Sarabjit SINGH present in interview and interpreted for Mr SINGH in Punjabi. | Exhibit A Exhibit B2 |
| 9.45am (DSC MORGAN’s watch) 9.50am (DVD clock) | Second recorded interview concluded. | Exhibit A |
| 10.45am | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. It was noted “Moved to holding cell. Pending enquires [sic]. Given blanket. Nil complaints.” | Exhibit 6 |
| 12.05pm | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. It was noted “To be provided food and drink.” | Exhibit 6 |
| 1.25pm | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. No visible signs of injury, and no complaints. | Exhibit 6 |
| 1.25pm (MORGAN’s watch) 1.30pm (DVD clock) | Third recorded interview commenced between DSC MORGAN, Det Sgt RUMBLE and Mr SINGH. Pradeep PRADHAN present in interview and interpreted for Mr SINGH in Hindi. | Exhibit A Exhibit B3 PRADHAN: T344:15 – T345:4 |
| 1.30pm (MORGAN notes) | Interview suspended. | Exhibit A |
| Statement obtained from Mr SINGH. Mr PRADHAN interpreted for Mr SINGH in Hindi. | Exhibit 8 PRADHAN: T345:14 – T345:16 | |
| 2.43pm | Mr SINGH signs his statement. Statement is countersigned by Mr PRADHAN. | Exhibit 5 PRADHAN: T345:14 – T346:3 |
| 3.20pm | Welfare check of Mr SINGH. It was noted “Checked. [All clear], with [interpreter]. Assisting with [enquiries].” | Exhibit 6 |
| 3.52pm (MORGAN’s watch) 3.56pm (DVD clock) | Fourth recorded interview commenced between DSC MORGAN, Det Sgt RUMBLE and Mr SINGH. Pradeep PRADHAN present in interview and interpreted for Mr SINGH in Hindi. | Exhibit A |
| 3.57pm (MORGAN’s watch) 4.02pm (DVD clock) | Fourth recorded interview concluded. | Exhibit A |
| 4.35pm | Bail justice Peter NODEN attended the Narre Warren Police Station. | MORGAN: T358:30 – T359:7 Exhibit 8 |
| Circa 4.40pm | Remand application in interview room 1 with Mr PRADHAN present as interpreter. Mr SINGH remanded into custody. | Exhibit 8. MEASHAM: T322:16 – T322:20, T322:30 – T322:2. Exhibit C. |
| 5.00pm | Mr PRADHAN left. | Exhibit 8. |
0
4
0