Tasmania v Cadman - [2011] TASSC 2

[2011] TASSC 2

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Cadman [2011] TASSC 2

PARTIES: TASMANIA, State of
v

CADMAN, Joshua Paul

FILE NO/S:  382/2010
DELIVERED ON:  31 January 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  2 December 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Confessions and admissions – Statements – Records of interview – Other matters – Admission made to police officer following flight – Whether admission made during official questioning – Whether reasonable explanation why audio visual record of admission could not be made – Subsequent audio visual record of interview with the accused where he declined to adopt or confirm the making of the admission – Whether reasonable explanation why audio visual record of adoption or confirmation of the admission could not be made.
Kelly v R (2004) 218 CLR 216; followed.
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cook [2006] TASSC 75; R v Julin [2000] TASSC 50, referred to.
R v McKenzie [1999] TASSC 36, disapproved.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s85A(1).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2754]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  A Hensley
             Accused:  A Hall
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Grant Tucker

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 2
Number of paragraphs: 44

Serial No 2/2011
File No 382/2010

STATE OF TASMANIA v JOSHUA PAUL CADMAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD CJ
31 January 2011

I am required to determine the admissibility of evidence of an admission made by the accused to police officers shortly after he was arrested near the scene of the alleged crime. The admission was not recorded electronically.

He is charged with committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm contrary to the Criminal Code, s170. It is alleged that in the early hours of 1 January 2010 in a public street at Ravenswood, he struck a man in the head with a metal star picket.

I understand the Crown case to be that there was an altercation between a number of people, who included the accused, and that the complainant and his wife tried to break up a physical fight or altercation between two people when the accused struck the complainant in the head with the picket, causing a fracture to his skull.

On the voir dire, I heard evidence from Sergeant Hanson and Constable Hart to determine the admissibility of the challenged evidence.

The police officers went to the scene of the alleged crime at about 3.45am and then to a nearby unit where they believed the accused might be. Their evidence was that he ran out the back door and away. Police officers gave chase.

Constable Hart's evidence was that he and Constable Bonney found the accused hiding in a carport. He was told that he was under arrest and placed in handcuffs. Within a few seconds Sergeant Hanson arrived on the scene. They walked the accused into a car park area where Sergeant Hanson spoke to him and Constable Hart conducted a pat-down search of him. Constable Hart said that…

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 Tasmania v Cadman

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Cadman [2011] TASSC 2
Case: [2011] TASSC 2
Decision Date: 31 January 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Tasmanian Supreme Court heard a case involving the admissibility of a statement made by the defendant, Cadman, during an interview with police. The dispute centred on whether the statement could be admitted into evidence given that there was no audio visual record of the interview or the making of the admission. Cadman was charged with various criminal offences, including drug-related charges. The legal issue was whether Cadman's admission to the police officer during the interview was made during official questioning and whether there was a reasonable explanation as to why an audio visual record of the admission could not be made. The court also had to determine whether there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the subsequent interview where Cadman declined to adopt or confirm the making of the admission.

The court considered the nature of the admission, whether it was made during official questioning and whether there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record. The court found that the admission was made during official questioning and that there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record. The court held that the admission was admissible as evidence as there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the admission, and the admission was consistent with the evidence of the police officer. The court further found that there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the subsequent interview where Cadman declined to adopt or confirm the making of the admission.

The court concluded that the admission made by Cadman was admissible as evidence. The court found that there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the admission, and the admission was consistent with the evidence of the police officer. The court also found that there was a reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the subsequent interview where Cadman declined to adopt or confirm the making of the admission. The court held that the prosecution had established the admissibility of the statement, and it could be considered as evidence in the trial.

The court ordered that the statement made by Cadman be admitted into evidence. The court held that the prosecution had established the admissibility of the statement, and it could be considered as evidence in the trial. The court further held that the reasonable explanation for not making an audio visual record of the admission or the subsequent interview did not affect the weight of the evidence. The court concluded that the statement was admissible and could be used as evidence in the trial.

Orders