Tasmania v Cadman

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.