R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout - [2000] NSWSC 185

CITATION: R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout & Ors [2000] NSWSC 185

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70023/99; 70205/99; 70206/99; 70098/99

HEARING DATE(S): 21-22 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 23 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Pieter Egbert Helmhout
Regina v Deborah Joy Davidson
Regina v Mark William Helmhout
Regina v Joanne Rose Delly

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J

COUNSEL : C: Mr R D Cogswell SC
PH: Mr A Webb
DD: Mr J S Stratton
MH: Mr G Corr
JD: Mr M Crawford-Fish

SOLICITORS: C: D Knott, Director of Public Prosecutions
PH: Christine Bourke
DD: Brenda Duchen
MH: J R Jeffery, South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Service
JD: G J Piscioneri

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Admissibility of accused's interview with police - voir dire - whether accused was threatened - state of affectation by alcohol, drugs and depression - whether failure by police to comply with cl 28

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, ss 84, 85, 90, 138, 142, 189
Crimes (Detention after Arrest) Regulation 1998, cl.28
Crimes Act 1900, Part 10A

CASES CITED: R v Rooke (unrep, CCA, 2/9/97)
The Queen v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159

DECISION: Tender of interview allowed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J
WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2000

70023/99 - REGINA v PIETER EGBERT HELMHOUT
70205/99 - REGINA v DEBORAH JOY DAVIDSON
70206/99 - REGINA v MARK WILLIAM HELMHOUT
70098/99 - REGINA v JOANNE ROSE DELLY
JUDGMENT - Admissibility of ERISP with Mark Helmhout

1    HER HONOUR: After the jury was empanelled but prior to the Crown's opening, Mr Corr, who appears on behalf of the accused, Mark Helmhout, made application for me to determine the question of the admissibility of an electronically recorded interview between his client and Detective McCloskey made at the Queanbeyan Police Station on 20 June 1998. Mr Corr submitted that the interview was inadmissible, having regard to the provisions of ss 84, 85 and 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (“the Act”). Alternatively, Mr Corr submitted by reference to s 90 of that Act that I would exclude the interview in the exercise of my discretion.
2 The Crown Prosecutor agreed that it was appropriate that this matter be determined as a preliminary issue. I embarked upon a voir dire hearing pursuant to s 189 of the Act. Evidence was led by the Crown from Detectives McCloskey and Hinton, who were the two officers who conducted the interview.
3    Sergeant Hanrahan, the officer in charge of the Queanbeyan Police Station at the time, was also called. Sergeant Hanrahan spoke to the accused at the conclusion of the interview and asked him a series of formal questions which are recorded at question 354 and following.
4    Sergeant Dagwell, the custody manager at the Queanbeyan Police Station, responsible for the accused's custody in the relevant period, also gave evidence.
5    A number of exhibits were tendered on the voir dire, including the two videotapes of the interview. I viewed the whole of the interview during the course of the hearing. In the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 185
Decision Date: 23 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pieter Egbert Helmhout involved the accused, who was charged with various criminal offences, including assault and drug-related charges. The primary issue in the case was the admissibility of an interview conducted with the accused by the police. The accused claimed that he had been threatened during the interview, and that his capacity to understand and respond appropriately to the questioning was impaired by alcohol, drugs, and depression. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to determine whether the police had breached the provisions of clause 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) by failing to comply with the accused's rights during the interview. The accused's legal team argued that the police had not provided appropriate safeguards to ensure that the interview was conducted fairly and in accordance with the accused's rights. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the interview had been conducted lawfully and that the accused's claims of being threatened or impaired were not substantiated.

The court found that the accused's claims of being threatened during the interview were not supported by the evidence. However, the court did find that the accused's capacity to understand and respond to the police questioning had been impaired by his state of affectation due to alcohol, drugs, and depression. The court held that the police had not complied with clause 28 of the Charter, as they had failed to provide appropriate safeguards to ensure that the interview was conducted fairly and in accordance with the accused's rights. As a result, the court ruled that the interview was inadmissible as evidence in the trial.

The court ordered that the interview be excluded from evidence and that the jury be instructed to disregard any reference to the interview in the proceedings. The case highlights the importance of ensuring that the rights of individuals are protected during police interviews, particularly where the accused's capacity to understand and respond to questioning may be impaired. The court's decision serves as a reminder to police of the need to provide appropriate safeguards to ensure that interviews are conducted fairly and in accordance with the rights of the accused.

Orders