R v Pedler

The appeal concerned a conviction for indecent assault against a nine-year-old female complainant, "F", and a related conviction for an indecent act against an eight-year-old male complainant, "M". The appellant, the father of F and M, argued that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of an interview conducted by police with the appellant, which contained alleged admissions.

The court was required to determine whether the interview with the appellant complied with section 74D of the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA), which mandates the recording of interviews with suspects. Specifically, the court had to consider if the interview was improperly admitted into evidence and, if so, whether this constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, thereby requiring the conviction to be quashed. The court also considered the safety and satisfaction of the verdicts in light of other evidence, including the testimony of the complainants, a defence witness, and the appellant's alleged deletion of a photograph.

The court found that the interview with the appellant did not comply with section 74D of the *Summary Offences Act 1953* (SA) because it was not recorded electronically, despite it being reasonably practicable to do so. The purpose of this legislation, as explained by reference to parliamentary debates and High Court jurisprudence, is to ensure the reliability of admissions made by suspects and to prevent disputes over the content of interviews. Given this non-compliance, the evidence of the interview was inadmissible unless the court was satisfied that the interests of justice required its admission, which the court was not. The court concluded that the admission of this unrecorded interview led to a substantial miscarriage of justice regarding the conviction for the indecent assault of F.

Consequently, the appeal against the conviction for the indecent assault of F was allowed, and the conviction was quashed, with a judgment and verdict of acquittal directed. However, the appeal against the conviction for the indecent act against M was dismissed, as the court found M's evidence to be unchallenged and free from inconsistencies that would render the verdict unsafe.