Sindoni v The Queen

The applicant, Sindoni, appealed to the Court of Appeal against a decision admitting evidence of a Record of Interview (ROI) into criminal proceedings. The dispute centred on whether the circumstances under which the ROI was conducted rendered its admission unfair, thereby warranting exclusion in the exercise of judicial discretion.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the ROI into evidence. This required the Court to consider whether the applicant's claimed intoxication and tiredness, coupled with his expressed desire to stop the interview, rendered the admission of the ROI unfair, despite his continued participation and eventual consent to questioning.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that while the applicant had expressed a desire to stop the interview, he nonetheless continued to volunteer information. The Court found that his claimed state of intoxication and tiredness was of little significance, particularly in light of the audio-visual recording which indicated that he pressed on with providing information despite his initial requests to cease. Furthermore, the police officer had reminded the applicant of the need for his consent to questioning, which he provided. Consequently, the Court concluded that the circumstances did not render the admission of the ROI unfair and that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence. Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.