R v Murcott; R v Johnston

The matter of R v Murcott; R v Johnston involved two separate appeals against convictions by the accused, Murcott and Johnston. Both accused had their cases consolidated before the court. The dispute centred around the admissibility of statements made by the accused during police interviews. Specifically, the court was asked to determine whether the signed, written statements were admissible in light of the absence of video recording of the interviews. The accused argued that their admissions and confessions were inadmissible because they were not properly recorded as required by law. The case was heard by the court of criminal appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the state had satisfied its burden of proof that the accused had consented to the police interviews not being recorded. The court needed to determine whether the police had a reasonable excuse for not using a video recorder during the interviews. The accused claimed that without video evidence, their signed statements could not be considered reliable and therefore should be excluded from the trial. The court was tasked with evaluating the circumstances under which the accused made their statements and whether the absence of a video recording violated any legal principles concerning the admissibility of confessions.

The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and concluded that the state had not met its burden of proof. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that the accused had given their informed consent to the interviews not being recorded. As such, the absence of video recording was deemed to be a breach of legal requirements. Consequently, the court ruled that the signed statements were inadmissible. The court held that the state's failure to provide a reasonable excuse for not using a video recorder meant that the statements could not be relied upon as evidence against the accused. The convictions were quashed, and the cases were remitted for a new trial.