R v Meyn, John Michael (No 1)

The appellant, John Michael Meyn, was charged with the murder of his partner, following a domestic homicide incident. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of an electronically recorded interview with the accused. The defence applied for the evidence to be excluded on the basis that it had been obtained improperly, due to the accused's physical state at the time of the interview. The case came before the court on a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the evidence. The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the accused's interview was improperly obtained, and if so, whether it should be excluded under the common law exclusionary rule. The court considered whether the police were reckless as to the accused's physical state at the time of the interview, specifically his intoxication and fatigue, and whether the failure of the interviewing officers to inspect custody management records noting the accused's intoxication amounted to impropriety. The court held that the evidence was improperly obtained, as the police had been reckless in failing to consider the accused's physical state at the time of the interview. The court found that the officers were aware of the accused's intoxication and fatigue but did not take reasonable steps to ensure his physical state was suitable for an interview. As a result, the evidence obtained in consequence of the impropriety should be excluded. The court's reasoning was based on the principles of the common law exclusionary rule, which aims to deter police impropriety and protect the accused's right to a fair trial. The court held that the evidence obtained from the improperly conducted interview should be excluded from the trial. The court further found that the accused's intoxication and fatigue at the time of the interview had a significant impact on his ability to provide a reliable account of the events, and that the failure of the police to take reasonable steps to address this matter amounted to impropriety. The court emphasised the importance of police officers acting with due regard to the accused's physical and mental state when conducting interviews, and the need for officers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the accused is in a suitable state to participate in the interview process.