DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Lin [2006] QDC 298
PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
YUNG-HSIN LIN
DefendantFILE NO: 453/05
DIVISION: Criminal Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: S 590AA pre-trial hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:
Southport
DELIVERED ON:
24 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Southport
HEARING DATE: 27 January 2006
JUDGE: Newton DCJ
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 – whether record of interview between accused and police should be excluded – whether interview should be excluded pursuant to general discretionary powers of the court – applicant Taiwanese born whose first language is Mandarin – whether applicant’s English was so poor that any responses given by him during the interview should be excluded as unreliable or as demonstrating lack of understanding or the warning given by investigating police officer
Cases cited:
R v Cho [2001] QCA 196
R v Li & Anor [1993] 2VR 80R v Mohamed(Ruling) [2004] VSC 408
COUNSEL: Ms B Currie for the respondent
Mr N J MacGroarty for the applicantSOLICITORS: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Nyst Lawyers for the applicant
This is an application to exclude evidence from the trial of the applicant, Yung-Hsin Lin on a charge of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing grievous bodily harm while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance. The evidence that is sought to be excluded comprises a record of an interview conducted by a police officer with the applicant on 19 April 2003, commencing at 8:46 am.
The facts relating to this matter may be briefly stated. On 19 April 2003, at a time shortly before 3:30 am, a motor vehicle driven by the applicant collided with a taxi in Salerno Street, Isle of Capri. The Crown will allege that the applicant said to a witness “don’t call the police … I need to call my brother and get him here so that he can tell the police that he was driving.” The taxi driver was badly injured as a result of the collision.
The applicant underwent a road-side breath test at the scene and subsequently was conveyed to a police station for a proper breath analysis which resulted in a reading of 0.119% at 5:21 am. A doctor has calculated the applicant’s blood alcohol concentration at 3:30 am at approximately 0.15%.
The weather was fine, the road surface dry and no vehicle defects were discovered which may have contributed to the incident. Salerno Street carries two lanes of both east and west-bound traffic. Marks located on the road surface, it will be alleged, indicated that the collision occurred in the lane in which the taxi was travelling. Thus, the applicant’s motor vehicle crossed double white centre lines into the outside east-bound lane prior to the collision. The force of the impact caused the taxi to rotate approximately 180 degrees and to come to rest on the nature strip.
Constable Clive Cust conducted an interview with the applicant at the Coomera Police Station on 19 April 2003,…
Continue reading R v Lin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lin [2006] QDC 298
- Case
- [2006] QDC 298
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the respondent's language proficiency and the circumstances surrounding the interview to determine whether the respondent's poor understanding of English led to unreliable responses. The court also considered the adequacy of the warning given by the investigating officer. The court found that the respondent's English was indeed poor but held that this did not render his responses unreliable or indicative of a lack of understanding of the warnings provided. The court concluded that there were no grounds to exclude the evidence under the Act or the court's discretionary powers.
Given the court's findings, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed. The evidence obtained from the interview between the respondent and the police was deemed admissible for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against the respondent. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that individuals with limited English proficiency are properly informed of their rights and the content of any interview they undergo, but found that in this instance, the respondent's comprehension and responses were not sufficiently compromised to warrant exclusion of the evidence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.