R v Pitts (No 1)

In the case of R v Pitts (No 1), the respondent, Pitts, was charged with various criminal offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue for the court was the admissibility of statements made by Pitts to the police, which were challenged on several grounds. Firstly, the court needed to determine if the statements were properly obtained under the Evidence Act s 139, considering the manner in which the police cautioned Pitts, which was subject to unstated conditions. Secondly, the court examined whether the evidence should be excluded under Evidence Act s 138 due to the nature of the questioning.

The court held that the statements were not properly obtained as the caution given to Pitts was not clear and specific, leaving unstated conditions that could potentially lead to an offence if not complied with. This uncertainty rendered the caution ineffective, and thus the statements were not admissible under s 139. Furthermore, the court found that the persistent questioning by the police, despite Pitts indicating that he did not wish to answer, breached the privilege against self-incrimination, leading to the exclusion of the evidence under s 138. The court also ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination could constitute a "reasonable excuse" for the purposes of s 12 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, thereby limiting the police's power to request a person's identity in certain circumstances.

In conclusion, the court determined that the statements made by Pitts to the police were inadmissible due to the ineffective caution and the breach of his privilege against self-incrimination. The evidence was therefore excluded, and no further orders were made in the decision.