R v BJM

In the case of R v BJM, the applicant sought to exclude the evidence obtained through the use of an undercover police officer in a watchhouse cell. The applicant had previously refused to answer police questions and was subsequently arrested and taken to a watchhouse where he made admissions to the undercover officer. The court was tasked with determining whether these admissions were illegally or improperly obtained, and whether the discretion to exclude evidence should be exercised. The applicant argued that the evidence was obtained at an unacceptable price, having regard to prevailing community standards, and that the public policy and broader discretions should be exercised to exclude the evidence.

The court considered the legal issues of whether the watchhouse admissions were illegally or improperly obtained, and whether the discretion to exclude evidence should be exercised. The court found that the conduct of the police officers involved in the investigation did not breach any law or code governing police questioning of suspects or covert police operations. However, the court acknowledged that conduct may be unacceptable having regard to prevailing community standards without it being illegal or unlawful. The court noted that conduct that is allowed or even encouraged by the executive may not be conduct that courts wish to encourage or be seen to tolerate by allowing the product of that conduct to be admitted into evidence.

The court exercised its discretion to exclude evidence and dismissed the application. The court found that the evidence obtained through the use of the undercover police officer was not obtained at an unacceptable price, having regard to prevailing community standards. The court also found that the public policy and broader discretions should not be exercised to exclude the evidence. The court held that the applicant's admissions were voluntary and not the result of any impropriety or unfairness on the part of the police.

No orders were made.