R v Rahme

The case of R v Rahme involved a criminal appeal where the appellant was tried jointly with another individual, Bunevski. The nature of the dispute centred on the admissibility of a record of interview that had been withdrawn by the Crown due to it being induced by a threat. The co-accused, Bunevski, subsequently used the answers in the withdrawn record of interview to cross-examine the appellant. The court had to determine whether the appellant’s admissions during the interview were admissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act 1995. This section stipulates that evidence of an admission is not admissible unless it can be shown that the admission and its making were not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct or a threat of such conduct.

The key legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's admissions during the interview could be admitted into evidence, given that they were influenced by an implied threat made by the police officer conducting the interview. The court needed to assess whether the implied threat rendered the record of interview inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act. The Crown withdrew the record of interview because it had been induced by the threat, and the trial proceeded without revisiting the issue of its voluntariness. However, Bunevski sought to use the content of the excluded record of interview to cross-examine the appellant. The court had to determine the admissibility of the excluded record of interview and whether it could be used to cross-examine the appellant effectively.

The court found that the implied threat made during the interview rendered the record of interview inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act. The court held that the implied threat had indeed influenced the appellant’s admissions, and thus the record of interview could not be admitted as evidence. The court also ruled that the co-accused could not use the content of the excluded record of interview to cross-examine the appellant as it would have violated the appellant’s rights under the Evidence Act. The court concluded that the appellant's admissions in the excluded record of interview were not admissible, and Bunevski’s attempt to use them during cross-examination was impermissible.