R v FE

The case involved a 15-year-old girl, the complainant, who alleged she had been sexually assaulted. The accused, FE, faced criminal charges arising from the incident. The dispute centred on the admissibility of statements made by FE during a police interview, where he allegedly confessed to the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine whether the statements should be excluded under s 138 and s 139 of the Evidence Act 1995 due to being improperly obtained because the accused was not cautioned at the outset of the interview. Additionally, the court needed to decide if FE's right to silence was unfairly deprived under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995, particularly given his age and any vulnerabilities.

The court began by examining whether FE was cautioned before the interview. It found that he was not, which violated the statutory requirement. Despite the initial refusal to answer questions, the police continued the interview, leading to a confession. The court considered whether this continued questioning unfairly deprived FE of his right to silence. Given his age and potential vulnerabilities, the court found that his rights were indeed unfairly compromised. The court concluded that the evidence obtained should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 because it was obtained in breach of the statutory requirement to caution. Furthermore, the court held that the evidence was inadmissible under s 139 because it was obtained by unfairly taking advantage of FE's vulnerability.

The final orders of the court were that the statements made by FE during the police interview were excluded from evidence. The court's ruling highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for caution and protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals in the criminal justice process.