R v JPD - [2001] VSC 202

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1446 of 2000

THE QUEEN

JPD

---

JUDGE:	VINCENT, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	3 APRIL 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. JPD
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 202

---

CATCHWORDS: Police interview – Voluntariness – Young offender – Practicability of arranging attendance of parent or guardian – Appropriate presence of independent third person – Section 464E Crimes Act 1958 – R. v. Warrell [1993] 1 VR 671; Collins v. R. (1980) 31 ALR 257; R. v. Anunga (1976) 11 ALR 257.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. W. Morgan-Payler QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. Graham Thomas	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Prior to the empanelment of the jury in this matter, objection was taken to the introduction into evidence in the trial of the fact and substance of a conversation conducted between the accused and investigating police members at the offices of the Frankston Criminal Investigation Branch.

Although it was asserted in an outline of argument that the objection was directed to the voluntariness of the interview and the fairness of the admission of any statement made by the accused, together with an argument based upon public policy, as I now understand counsel's submissions essentially reliance is placed upon the proposition that there has not been strict or proper compliance with the statutory provisions governing the conduct of police interviews with persons of the age of the accused. There is in place, the argument proceeds, a statutory regime designed to ensure that any admissions made or statements uttered by a young person in the course of an interview can be perceived clearly as voluntary, that there is no unfairness attached to the circumstances in which they were obtained and ultimately, that the investigative process and any conviction which may result from it possess moral as well as legal integrity.

Reference was made in this context to some remarks made by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v. Warrell.

I have had the opportunity of hearing from a number of police members who were involved in the interview process, as well as Mr Blake, who participated in the role of an independent third person. I have also heard from the accused and his father. Although counsel did not persist with an argument that the Crown had not established that the statements made by the accused were voluntary, I have nevertheless directed attention to that question. Without setting out the detail of the evidence on this aspect, the course that I consider is appropriate where issues of credibility arise on a voir dire is that it is sufficient to say that I do not accept the assertions of the accused that statements attributed to various members of the police force and Mr Blake can be accepted. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused well understood that he had a choice…

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 JPD

Details

AGLC: R v JPD [2001] VSC 202
Case: [2001] VSC 202
Decision Date: 3 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the defendant, JPD, was charged with drug-related offences. The prosecution's case relied heavily on statements made by JPD during a police interview. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. JPD challenged the admissibility of the statements on the grounds that they were not voluntary and that the police failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding the presence of a parent or guardian during the interview.

The court had to determine whether JPD's statements were voluntary and whether the police fulfilled their obligations under section 464E of the Crimes Act 1958. This section requires that, when interviewing a young person, police must ensure that a parent or guardian is present unless it is not practicable to do so. If it is not practicable, an independent third person should be present. The court had to assess the police's reasons for not arranging for a parent or guardian and whether the alternative arrangements met the statutory requirements.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the interview and the police's efforts to contact JPD's parents. It was found that the police had made reasonable attempts to contact JPD's parents but were unable to reach them in time. Given the urgency of the investigation and the unlikelihood that a parent or guardian could have been present within a reasonable timeframe, the court concluded that the police's actions were reasonable and that the independent third person's presence was appropriate. The court held that JPD's statements were voluntary and admissible.

As a result, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, and the charges against JPD were upheld. The defendant's challenge to the admissibility of the police interview statements was dismissed.

Orders