Legal Research
Cases
R v Sumpton

R v Sumpton

Case [2014] NSWSC 1432 13 October 2014

Failure to Comply with LEPRA

Delay in Bringing Before Authorised Officer

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sumpton [2014] NSWSC 1432
Hearing dates: 7-10 October 2014
Decision date: 13 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
The evidence is excluded.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - admissions - admissions influenced by oppressive conduct - unlawful detention - requirement to take suspect before authorised officer "as soon as is reasonably practicable" - improper questioning in earlier interview - improper pressure to change version of events - failure to comply with LEPRA - whether unlawful conduct is also relevant to "oppressive conduct" under s 84 - meaning of oppressive conduct - delay in taking accused before authorised officer.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (UK)
Cases Cited: Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46; 232 CLR 67
Habib v Nationwide News [2010] NSWCA 34; 76 NSWLR 299
Higgins v R [2007] NSWCCA 56
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; (2004) 218 CLR 216
McDermott v The King [1948] HCA 23; (1948) 76 CLR 501
R v MM [2004] NSWCCA 364
Palmer v The Queen [1998] HCA 2; 193 CLR 1
R v Clarke (1997) 97 A Crim R 414
Regina v Dungay [2001] NSWCCA 443; 126 A Crim R 216
R v Fulling [1987] 2 All ER 65
R v Heffernan (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 16 June 1998, unrep)
R v LL (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 April 1996, unrep)
R v Taylor (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW),18 April 1995, unrep)
R v Truong (1996) 86 A Crim R 188
R v Ul-Haque [2007] NSWSC 1251; 177 A Crim R 348
R v Ye Zhang [2000] NSWSC 1099
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Crown
Andrew Mervyn Sumpton (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
J McLennan SC (Crown)
M Dennis (Accused)
Solicitors:
New South Wales DPP (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/165950

Judgment

The accused is charged with murder. He seeks the exclusion of a police interview conducted with him on 25 May 2012 ("the impugned interview"). The interview was conducted in a cell adjacent to the charge room of the Grafton Police Station and was recorded by means of a hand held digital recorder. The interview contains significant admissions. The accused submits that the admissions were influenced by oppressive conduct on the part of the police and relies on the provisions of s 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). He also submits that it is unfair to use the evidence given the circumstances in which the admissions were made: s 90 of the Evidence Act. Finally, he submits that the admissions were obtained improperly or unlawfully and seeks exclusion of the interview pursuant to s 138 of the Evidence Act.

I have found resolution of the objection extremely difficult. It would be a significant step to exclude evidence of the accused's confession to murder. On the other hand, the conduct of the police and…

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.

Continue reading R v Sumpton

Details

AGLC: R v Sumpton [2014] NSWSC 1432
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1432
Decision Date: 13 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sumpton, the accused faced criminal charges, and the central issue revolved around the admissibility of certain statements made by the accused during police questioning. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The core dispute was whether the admissions made by the accused were influenced by oppressive conduct, specifically unlawful detention and improper questioning, which could render the evidence inadmissible under section 84 of the relevant legislation.

The court was required to determine whether the accused's rights were breached due to oppressive conduct by the police, including unlawful detention, improper questioning, and pressure to change his version of events. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the police's failure to comply with the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) played a role in the oppressive conduct. A key issue was whether the unlawful conduct was relevant to determining if the conduct was oppressive under section 84. The court also needed to interpret the meaning of oppressive conduct and examine if the delay in taking the accused before an authorised officer contributed to the oppressive nature of the conduct.

The court found that the conduct of the police was indeed oppressive, considering the unlawful detention, improper questioning, and pressure applied to change the accused's statements. The delay in taking the accused before an authorised officer was a contributing factor. The court concluded that the oppressive conduct influenced the admissions made by the accused, rendering them inadmissible under section 84 of the legislation. The court's interpretation of oppressive conduct was broad, encompassing any conduct that could undermine the voluntariness of a confession. The court ordered that the statements made by the accused during the oppressive conduct could not be used as evidence in the trial.

Orders