Rule that evidence of the second pretext phone call, and evidence of the Facebook messages after the first Facebook message from the defendant after the first phone call, be excluded from the evidence led in the Crown case.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – Confessions and admissions – whether admissible – whether made to person in authority – whether to be excluded as a matter of discretion – whether reliable.
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Hasanov
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hasanov [2013] QDC 342
Case
[2013] QDC 342
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Hasanov, was convicted of various drug-related offences. The primary issue before the court was the admissibility of certain communications made by the appellant during police investigations. Specifically, the court had to determine whether statements made by the appellant to individuals deemed to be in authority were admissible and, if so, whether they should be excluded under the discretion afforded by the court. The reliability of the evidence was also a critical consideration.
The court examined the definitions and scope of the term "person in authority" as well as the circumstances under which such communications could be considered voluntary and thus admissible. The court also assessed whether the reliability of the evidence warranted its exclusion despite its admissibility. After thorough analysis, the court concluded that the evidence obtained from the second pretext phone call, as well as Facebook messages following the initial communication, should be excluded due to the unreliability of the evidence.
The court found that the evidence from the second pretext phone call and subsequent Facebook messages should be excluded as they did not meet the threshold of reliability required for admissibility. Consequently, these pieces of evidence were ruled inadmissible in the Crown's case against the appellant. This decision underscores the importance of reliability and voluntariness in the admissibility of confessions and admissions in criminal cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
Rule that evidence of the second pretext phone call, and evidence of the Facebook messages after the first Facebook message from the defendant after the first phone call, be excluded from the evidence led in the Crown case.