R v Linda Maree Troutman - [2013] NSWDC 316

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Linda Maree Troutman [2013] NSWDC 316
Hearing dates: 2/10/2013 - 4/10/2013
Decision date: 02 October 2013
Before: Tupman DCJ
Decision: Admissions rejected pursuant to s281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1989.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Admissibility - verbal admissions not tape-recorded - whether reasonable excuse for not recording.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 - s112 (2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1989 - s281 (2), s281 (4)
Cases Cited: R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258
R v White and Ors (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 469
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Linda Maree Troutman
Representation: Mr. Fliegner (Trial Advocate for DPP)
Mr. J. Quilten (Counsel for the Offender)
Ms. E. Macdonald (DPP Solicitor)
Mr. D. Kostras (ALS Solicitor)

File Number(s): 2012/205155

Judgment

HER HONOUR: There is a trial before me, a judge alone trial, in which the accused has been arraigned on a charge contrary to s 112(2) that on 30 June 2012 she broke and entered the dwelling house of one Ahmed Camgoz and stole property from him there which included a passport, certificate of citizenship, Medicare card, Centrelink cards and a Nokia mobile phone. It is charged as an aggravated break, enter and steal on the basis of an allegation that she was armed with an offensive weapon at the time.

Before the trial properly commences there has been a voir dire into the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be led by the Crown. The Crown is seeking to lead two statements made by the accused to investigating officers at the scene of the offence at the time immediately after her arrest, which the Crown seeks to rely on as admissions. They are objected to on the basis of s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act which requires that in such circumstances any statements alleged to be admissions must be presented to the Court by way of a tape recording made by, in this case, the police officer, unless the prosecution establishes that there was a reasonable excuse as to why a tape recording could not be made.

As briefly as possible the facts are, I accept, that a number of police officers were called to the premises at 55 Walker Street, Redfern at about 5.30 on Sunday 30 June 2012. One of those was Constable Rullis. He and another officer attended on the victim of this offence who, I accept, had not long beforehand been robbed by a woman inside his house and a number of his belongings taken. When the officer spoke to him he indicated a limited description, particularly referring to a facial feature of the woman and also told police that this same person had done it before. This occurred between 5.30 and 6.45pm.

Constable Rullis then left and spoke to two other officers who had arrived, and then at about 6.40pm, with one of the other officers, went down to the ground floor to leave the building. He then saw…

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 Linda Maree Troutman

Details

AGLC: R v Linda Maree Troutman [2013] NSWDC 316
Case: [2013] NSWDC 316
Decision Date: 02 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Linda Maree Troutman was charged with multiple offences including fraud, forgery, and uttering forged documents. The dispute involved whether certain verbal admissions made by Troutman during police interviews should be admitted as evidence against her in the trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the police had a reasonable excuse for not recording the verbal admissions on tape, as required by section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1989. The court had to determine if the police actions in not recording the admissions complied with the legislative requirements and if any other factors justified the omission.

The court considered the legislative framework under which the police are required to record interviews, and examined the circumstances under which the police conducted the interviews of Troutman. The court assessed the police's explanation for not recording the interviews and evaluated whether there was a reasonable excuse under the Act. The court also took into account the nature of the offences and the importance of ensuring the integrity and admissibility of evidence in criminal trials. Ultimately, the court found that the police did not provide a reasonable excuse for not recording the interviews, and therefore, the verbal admissions were inadmissible pursuant to section 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1989.

As a result, the admissions made by Troutman during the police interviews were rejected as evidence against her. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for recording interviews to maintain the fairness and reliability of the criminal justice process. The court's ruling was a clear directive that the police must provide a reasonable excuse if they choose not to comply with the statutory requirement to record interviews. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, with the admissions being excluded from the evidence presented at Troutman's trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Admissions rejected pursuant to s281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1989.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Linda Maree Troutman [2013] NSWDC 316
Hearing dates:	2/10/2013 - 4/10/2013
Decision date:	02 October 2013
Before:	Tupman DCJ
Decision:	Admissions rejected pursuant to s281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1989.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment - Admissibility - verbal admissions not tape-recorded - whether reasonable excuse for not recording.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 - s112 (2) Criminal Procedure Act 1989 - s281 (2), s281 (4)
Cases Cited:	R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258 R v White and Ors (No 5) [2012] NSWSC 469
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Linda Maree Troutman
Representation:	Mr. Fliegner (Trial Advocate for DPP) Mr. J. Quilten (Counsel for the Offender) Ms. E. Macdonald (DPP Solicitor) Mr. D. Kostras (ALS Solicitor)
File Number(s):	2012/205155