Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Seabourne

Tasmania v Seabourne

Case [2010] TASSC 35 17 June 2010

Admissibility of Evidence

Confessions and Admissions

Electronic Recording

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2010] TASSC 35

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Seabourne [2010] TASSC 35

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  SEABOURNE, Dwayne Grant

FILE NO/S:  36/2010
DELIVERED ON:  17 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Burnie
HEARING DATE:  9 – 11 June 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Confessions and admissions - Statements – Records of interview – Electronic recording – Admissions recorded in notes later confirmed during audio visual record of interview – Admissibility of evidence of admissions – Whether reasonable explanation for police not conducting an audio visual record of interview at the time the admissions were made.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s85A.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2753]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Other cases – Improperly or unlawfully obtained evidence – Whether search conducted improperly – Questioning conducted at same time as search and not observed by accused – Whether interview illegally or improperly conducted with accused as a prisoner – Whether interview to be excluded.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss138, 90.
Search Warrants Act 1997 (Tas), s13.
Corrections Act 1997 (Tas), ss17, 38.
Criminal Law (Interrogation and Detention) Act 1995 (Tas), s6.
Sims v Thomas (2007) 17 Tas R 114, followed.
R v Em (2003) NSWCCA 374, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2701]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  J Ransom
             Accused:  S G Wright
Solicitors:
             State:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Stephen G Wright

Judgment Number: [2010] TASSC 35
Number of paragraphs: 81

Serial No 35/1991
File No 36/2010

THE STATE OF TASMANIA v DWAYNE GRANT SEABOURNE

RULING GIVEN ON VOIR DIRE WOOD J

17 June 2010

The accused has pleaded not guilty to a charge of trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s12(1). The Crown case is that on 18 October 2008 the accused had possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.

On 18 October 2008 police officers and a police drug detector dog searched the accused's home at James Street, Devonport and found a quantity of methylamphetamine and cannabis. Detective Orme questioned the accused and, according to the case presented by the State, the accused made admissions regarding possession of the drugs. Detective Orme made handwritten notes of that conversation. Some eight months later when the accused was an inmate at Risdon Prison serving a term of imprisonment, police officers arranged an interview with the accused at Bellerive Police Station. The duration of the interview was approximately one hour. The audio visual record of that interview shows the accused in prison issue clothing, and with his hands behind his back. He was in handcuffs for the whole of the interview. In that interview Detective Orme read back to the accused his notes of the conversation during the search, and the accused was asked to admit that the notes were an accurate record of the questions and answers. The accused admitted that they were accurate. He was questioned in some more…

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 Seabourne

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Seabourne [2010] TASSC 35
Case: [2010] TASSC 35
Decision Date: 17 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Seabourne involved the defendant, Seabourne, who was on trial for various criminal offences. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of statements made by Seabourne during police interviews, specifically whether admissions recorded in police notes should be admitted when an audio-visual record of the interview was not contemporaneously made. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admissions made by Seabourne during the police interview were admissible as evidence and if there was a reasonable explanation for the police not recording the interview audio-visually at the time the admissions were made. The court had to consider the principles of admissibility of confessions and admissions in criminal trials, and the reliability and integrity of the recorded statements.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the police interview and found that while the police had taken detailed notes of the defendant's admissions, they did not record the interview audio-visually. The court acknowledged that while contemporaneous audio-visual recordings are preferable, they are not an absolute requirement for the admissibility of statements. The court assessed the reliability of the notes taken by the police and the process by which the admissions were later confirmed during the audio-visual recording of the interview. The court concluded that there was a reasonable explanation for the police not conducting an audio-visual record at the time the admissions were made and found the evidence of the admissions to be admissible.

The court ordered that the evidence of the admissions recorded in the police notes and confirmed during the audio-visual recording of the interview would be admitted in the trial. The trial proceeded with this evidence being considered alongside other evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence.

Orders