R v Hawkins

In the case of R v Hawkins, the defendant was convicted of multiple offences. The key dispute in the appeal was the admissibility of certain statements made by the defendant during police interviews, which had not been electronically recorded. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the police had a reasonable excuse for not recording these statements in accordance with statutory provisions.

The court had to decide whether the police had a reasonable excuse for not recording three separate conversations with the defendant. The first conversation, which lasted 18 minutes, occurred in an interview room equipped with recording equipment. The second conversation took place in a cell, where the defendant was in the custody of Corrective Services. The third conversation was also in a cell, but the police had concerns that Corrective Services would not permit the use of a recording device. The court was required to assess whether the police had acted reasonably in each situation.

The High Court found that the first conversation, which occurred in the interview room, was admissible. The court held that phrases such as “rapport building” and “conversation management” were devoid of meaningful content in the context of an interrogation. Therefore, there was no reasonable excuse for not recording this conversation. In contrast, the conversations held in the cells were deemed inadmissible because the police did not establish a reasonable excuse for not recording them. The court noted that there was no application to have the defendant transferred back to police custody or to take a handheld recording device into the cells. Consequently, the court held that the evidence from these conversations was inadmissible due to the failure to comply with the statutory requirements.

The court also addressed the issue of the accused's right to silence. The practice of taking the suspect to the interview room against their wishes and legal advice was not encouraged. The court held that evidence obtained through such practices should be excluded, except for questions calculated to adopt earlier out of court statements.