Steen v The Queen

This matter concerned an appeal by the appellant, Steen, against his conviction. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during an interaction between the appellant and Constable Walker. The appeal was heard by Peek, Nicholson, and Doyle JJ.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether certain evidence, specifically an admission made by the appellant to Constable Walker, was admissible. This involved considering whether the interaction constituted an "interview" for the purposes of section 74D of the relevant legislation, which mandated recording requirements. If non-compliance with these recording requirements was established, the court had to determine whether the interests of justice, as contemplated by section 74E(1)(b), nevertheless required the admission of the evidence.

The court reasoned that while there had been non-compliance with the recording requirements of section 74D, the interests of justice favoured the admission of the evidence. The onus was on the prosecution to demonstrate this, and in doing so, the court considered factors such as the nature of the non-compliance. It was inferred that Constable Walker's failure to record the exchange was not deliberate or reckless, but rather stemmed from a genuine, albeit mistaken, belief that recording was not required. This belief was considered reasonable in the circumstances. Furthermore, the court found the evidence of the appellant's statement – that he was unemployed – to be cogent and undisputed. The defence had not challenged the content of this statement during cross-examination, nor had they disputed the underlying fact of the appellant's unemployment at trial. The court also referred to a trilogy of High Court decisions concerning similar interstate legislation, which provided background assistance on the interpretation of recording requirements and exceptions.

The court was not satisfied that the first ground of appeal had been made out. The appeal was dismissed.