R v Hunter (No 6) - [2014] NSWSC 1149

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hunter (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1149
Hearing dates: 3 July 2014
Decision date: 04 July 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The whole of the first passage pertaining to the conversation in the police vehicle is excluded.
(2) None of the second passage pertaining to the conversation at the police station is excluded.
(3) None of the third passage pertaining to the conversation at the gaol is excluded, except for the final statement of Detective Sergeant Lowe and the words alleged to have been said by the accused, "He hit me and you're going to charge me?"

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - admissibility - Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 281 - whether admissions were made "in the course of official questioning"
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 281
Cases Cited: Bryant v R [2011] NSWCCA 26
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; 218 CLR 216
R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426
R v Naa [2009] NSWSC 851
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina
Paul Andrew Hunter
Representation: Counsel:
M Cinque (Crown)
D Carroll (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Shiranica Danieli Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2011/397367

Judgment

Objection has been taken by defence counsel to the reception into evidence of a number of admissions alleged to have been made by the accused to police officers. The objection is founded on s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

The admissions are alleged to have been made on three occasions: when the accused spoke to Detective Senior Constable Burton and Detective Mackie whilst travelling in a police vehicle on 21 June 2011; when the accused spoke to Detective Sergeant Evans and Detective Senior Constable Hind-Spiteri at Mt Druitt Police Station on 21 June 2011; and, finally, when the accused allegedly spoke to Detective Sergeant Lowe and Detective Hind-Spiteri when he was in a room attached to a gaol on 20 October 2011.

Defence counsel tendered a number of statements of police, with some annexures, on the voir dire. Neither party called oral evidence or sought to cross-examine the makers of those written statements.

It is convenient to set out extracts from those exhibits on the voir dire. There is a degree of repetition between the statement of Detective Hind-Spiteri and the statements of Detective Evans and Detective Lowe, making it unnecessary to extract any portion of the two latter statements. Of course, my determinations will relate to evidence of the alleged admissions from any source.

Shorn of material not pressed in the trial by the Crown Prosecutor, the three passages that are subject to an objection are as follows.

The first passage is at [20] of the statement of Detective Burton of 22 June 2011, which became voir dire exhibit 1:

...

Detective MACKIE said, "Paul, we heard you hurt your head. Is your head alright?"

He said, "My head, yeah it's ok, why?"

Detective…

Grounds of appeal

[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 Hunter (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Hunter (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1149
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1149
Decision Date: 04 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hunter (No 6) involved the accused, Hunter, and the prosecution. The dispute centred on the admissibility of statements Hunter made during an interview with police under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine whether these statements were admissions made "in the course of official questioning," a critical factor for their admissibility under section 281 of the Act. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with resolving this issue.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statements Hunter made during the police interview were admissible as evidence. This hinged on whether the statements were made "in the course of official questioning" as required by section 281 of the Act. The court had to interpret the phrase "in the course of official questioning" and decide if Hunter's statements fit within this definition. This interpretation was crucial as it would determine the admissibility of the statements in the subsequent trial.

The court held that the statements were indeed made "in the course of official questioning" and were therefore admissible. The reasoning was based on a careful interpretation of the statutory language and the context in which the questioning occurred. The court found that the questioning was conducted by police officers in a formal setting, which aligned with the ordinary meaning of "official questioning." The court also noted that Hunter's statements were made in response to specific inquiries by the police, further supporting their admissibility. This interpretation aligned with the purpose of the Act to ensure that statements made during official questioning are reliable and subject to certain procedural safeguards.

As a result of the court's decision, Hunter's statements were admitted as evidence in the trial. This outcome had significant implications for the prosecution's case, as the statements provided crucial evidence against Hunter. The court's interpretation of "in the course of official questioning" provided clarity for future cases involving the admissibility of statements made during police interviews under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Orders