R v Hijazi

In the case of R v Hijazi, the applicant, who was co-charged with producing and possessing dangerous drugs, sought to exclude the record of an interview with two police officers on the basis that the questioning was improper. The court was tasked with determining whether the questioning during the interview was overbearing or improper, and if the record of the interview should be excluded from the applicant's trial. The applicant argued that the questioning was unfair due to one police officer expressing disbelief and scepticism in response to many of the applicant’s answers, and that the applicant was cross-examined on matters and asked to explain a police officer’s suspicious state of mind, which was impermissible.

The court examined the nature of the questioning and whether it went beyond acceptable limits of cross-examination, considering the overall context of the interview and the conduct of the police officers involved. The court found that the questioning, while robust, did not reach the threshold of being oppressive or improper. The court held that the police officers' expressions of disbelief and scepticism were part of the investigative process, and the cross-examination was within permissible bounds. The court determined that there was no basis to exclude the record of the interview from the trial.

Accordingly, the application to exclude the record of the interview was dismissed. The court concluded that the police officers’ conduct during the interview was appropriate and did not undermine the fairness of the trial process. The record of the interview would therefore be admitted as evidence in the applicant's trial.