R v Cliff (No 2)

The second case of R v Cliff was heard before the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Mr Cliff, was charged with two counts of murder and had previously been convicted of those charges. His appeal concerned the admission of evidence obtained during police interviews that took place while he was unconscious and sedated in hospital. The lower court had ruled that the evidence was admissible, and Mr Cliff sought to appeal this decision on the grounds that it was obtained under unfair and prejudicial circumstances that outweighed its probative value.

The legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the unconscious and sedated police interviews was admissible, given that the appellant was unable to properly understand or respond to the questions due to his medical condition. The court had to determine whether such evidence could be considered as “official questioning” under the law, and if its admission was fair and did not unfairly prejudice the appellant.

The court held that the evidence obtained during the unconscious and sedated interviews was not admissible as it did not meet the criteria for “official questioning.” The court emphasised that for evidence to be considered as such, the person must be capable of understanding the questions and providing a voluntary response. Given that Mr Cliff was unconscious and sedated, he was unable to meet this requirement, and the evidence was therefore deemed inadmissible. The court further found that the unfair prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its probative value, thus reinforcing the decision to exclude it. As a result of this finding, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed.