The Queen v Downs

The case of The Queen v Downs was before the court, where the accused was contesting the admissibility of evidence obtained during a record of interview conducted by police. The accused argued that the admissions made during the interview should be excluded due to concerns about the voluntariness of the admissions, their fairness, and the method by which they were obtained. Specifically, the accused contended that the admissions were influenced by oppressive conduct, not made in circumstances that would make it unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected, obtained improperly, and unfair to admit due to the circumstances in which they were made.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admissions made by the accused during the record of interview were influenced by oppressive conduct, whether they were made in circumstances that made it unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected, whether they were obtained improperly, and whether they were unfair to admit due to the circumstances in which they were made. The court had to consider sections 84, 85(2), 138(1), and 90 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act (NT) in making its determination.

The court found that the police conduct did not amount to oppressive conduct within the meaning of section 84 of the ENULA. It held that while the accused perceived the conduct as oppressive, the DVD record of the interview did not bear out that perception. The court also found that the admissions were made in circumstances that were unlikely to adversely affect their truth, and that they were not obtained improperly. Furthermore, the accused failed to discharge the onus of establishing that the evidence was unfair to admit due to the circumstances in which it was made. Accordingly, the court held that the evidence of admissions should not be excluded.

The court ordered that the evidence of admissions made by the accused during the record of interview be admitted. The accused’s argument that the record of interview should be excluded was rejected by the court.