R v McKenzie, Ronald Leslie - [1998] TASSC 36

[1999] TASSC 36

PARTIES:  R
  v
  McKENZIE, Ronald Leslie

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  458/1998
DELIVERED:  31 March 1999
HEARING DATE/S:  29 March 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Wright J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Confessions and admissions - Records of interview - Other matters - Requirement for video taping - Admissibility of confessions and admissions if requirement not satisfied - Admission to detective prior to arrest - Subsequent video interview - Admission not adopted or confirmed by accused.
Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 (Tas), s8(2).
R v Arnol (1996) 6 Tas R 374, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [492]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  T L McDermott
             Respondent:  L A Mason
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  T L McDermott
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification:
Judgment ID Number: [1999] TASSC 36
Number of pages: 3

Serial No 36/1999
File No 458/1998

THE QUEEN v RONALD LESLIE McKENZIE

RULING DURING COURSE OF TRIAL WRIGHT J
(DELIVERED ORALLY) 31 March 1999

The accused challenges the admissibility of admissions allegedly made by him when he was intercepted by officers of the police Drug Bureau whilst he was travelling as a passenger in a Falcon utility at about 2.26pm on Friday 30 January 1998. On the voir dire, Detective Constable Heath Collidge gave evidence to the following effect:

"I approached the passenger side of the vehicle and introduced myself to mackenzie. I then asked mackenzie to step out of the vehicle which he did. I then informed mackenzie that I intended to search him and the vehicle.
I then said, 'Do you have anything you wish to produce?'
At this time mackenzie removed a quantity of plastic sachets containing white powder from his top right shirt pocket and handed them to Detective herbert.
I then said, 'What's in the sachets Ronald'
mackenzie replied, 'Speed'
I then said, 'Do you know it by any other name?'
mackenzie replied, 'Amphetamine I guess'
I then said, 'Who does it belong to'
mackenzie replied, 'It's mine'
At this time I cautioned mackenzie and asked him if he understood the caution to which he replied he did."

Detective Collidge also gave evidence that at about 5.25pm on the same day he went with the accused and other police officers to 17 Delwood Drive, Lutana where a bag containing white powder was found in a freezer. His evidence on the voir dire continued:

"I then said to mackenzie, 'Who does this belong to?'
mackenzie replied, 'It's mine'."

Further questions were asked as to the identity of the powder and the identity of the person who placed it in the freezer, to all of which questions the reply was, "No comment".

During a subsequent video interview, these and other questions and answers were put to the accused, but he was not specifically asked if he agreed with them. He was shown the police officer's notes of the questions and answers. After part of these notes were read to him, he was asked if he wished…

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 McKenzie, Ronald Leslie

Details

AGLC: R v McKenzie, Ronald Leslie [1998] TASSC 36
Case: [1998] TASSC 36
Decision Date: 31 March 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of R v McKenzie, Ronald Leslie, involved the accused challenging the admissibility of confessions and admissions made during his interaction with police officers. The dispute arose when the accused was intercepted by officers of the Drug Bureau while travelling as a passenger in a vehicle, leading to the discovery of a quantity of plastic sachets containing white powder. The accused allegedly made admissions regarding the ownership and nature of the powder both at the scene of the interception and later at a residence in Delwood Drive.

The central legal issue was whether the alleged confessions and admissions made by the accused during these interactions were admissible under the Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995. The court examined whether the confessions satisfied the requirements of section 8(2) of the Act, which outlines conditions for the admissibility of confessions made during videotaped interviews. The prosecution argued that the confessions should be admissible under subsection 8(2)(c), which permits confessions not made during a videotaped interview if there is a reasonable explanation and the confession is confirmed during a subsequent videotaped interview. However, the court found that the accused did not confirm the original confessions during the videotaped interview, rendering them inadmissible under the section.

The court also considered whether the confessions could be admitted under s8(2)(d) on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The prosecution submitted that there was a reasonable explanation for the absence of a video recording of the original confession, given the nature of the interaction and the limitations of police equipment. The court accepted that there was a reasonable explanation for not videotaping the initial interaction, but ultimately concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that justified admitting the contested evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that the admissions allegedly made by the accused at the time of arrest and at the Delwood Drive residence would not be admitted as evidence.

The court's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice. The court emphasised that the legislation aimed to prevent the problems associated with uncorroborated police evidence and required some form of corroboration for confessions made outside of videotaped interviews. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements and the need for caution when admitting evidence under exceptional circumstances provisions.

Orders