The Queen v Robert Allan Waters - [2002] ACTSC 13

THE QUEEN v ROBERT ALLAN WATERS [2002] ACTSC 13 (15 March 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – confessions – official questioning – no caution administered after formal arrest – earlier caution at search - Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 139, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 23F.
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – confessions – official questioning – where recording facilities available confession inadmissible unless recorded – parts of questioning not recorded – separate periods of questioning – Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 23V.
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – confessions – official questioning – whether truth of confession adversely affected – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 85.
CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – confessions – official questioning – unfairness discretion – Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 90.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 85, s 90, s 135, s 138, s 139, s 142

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 23B, s 23F, s 23V

Heatherington v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 370

Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177

Bina Raso (1993) 68 A Crim R 495
Brennan Patrick Donnelly (1997) 96 A Crim R 432
R v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159
Collins and Others v R (1980) 31 ALR 257 at 307

Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1

No. SCC 20 of 2000

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 15 March 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )              No. SCC 20 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION  )

THE QUEEN
against
ROBERT ALLAN WATERS

REASONS FOR RULING

Judge:  Gray J
Date of Ruling:  27 February 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT RULES THAT:

Evidence of admissions made by the accused in a video-recorded interview with Detective Constable McClymont that took place on 17 May 1999 is not admissible.

Robert Allan Waters was arraigned on one charge of theft. A voir dire hearing was held to determine the admissibility of admissions made by Mr Waters in a video-recorded interview with Detective Constable McClymont that took place on 17 May 1999 at the Belconnen Police Station. At the conclusion of the hearing, I ruled that the evidence of the admissions was not admissible. These are my reasons for that ruling.

The offence was alleged to have occurred on 29 January 1999 and involved the appropriation of two sums of money that Mr Waters received from service stations at Calwell and Kambah whilst he was acting as a security escort. The total sum involved was $17,802.46. He alleged that the money had been taken by an armed robber.

Mr Waters gave a statement to the police on the day of the incident and described how, on leaving the Ampol Service Station at Kambah and about to move onto the roadway proper, a man had reached in the front passenger window. That man was holding a gun and he removed the carry bag in which Mr Waters had placed the money which he had collected. The man ordered Mr Waters to drive off…

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 The Queen v Robert Allan Waters

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Robert Allan Waters [2002] ACTSC 13
Case: [2002] ACTSC 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Robert Allan Waters was a criminal case heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The accused, Robert Allan Waters, faced a charge of theft related to an incident on 29 January 1999. A voir dire hearing was held to determine the admissibility of admissions made by Mr Waters in a video-recorded interview with Detective Constable McClymont on 17 May 1999. The court ruled that the evidence of the admissions was inadmissible. The legal issues centered on the admissibility of confessions made during official questioning, with particular focus on the requirements for cautioning the accused, the necessity of recording interviews, and the impact of circumstances on the truth and fairness of the admissions.

The court found that Detective Constable McClymont failed to administer the required caution after Mr Waters' formal arrest and did not record parts of the questioning, contrary to statutory requirements. Additionally, the court held that the unrecorded conversation during the search and the subsequent questioning at the police station constituted a single period of questioning, meaning the requirement to record applied to the entire process. The court also found that the circumstances under which the confession was made, including threats and pressure exerted by the detective, adversely affected the truth of the admissions, rendering them inadmissible under the Evidence Act. Finally, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would be unfair to Mr Waters, invoking the discretionary power under the Evidence Act to exclude it.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the video-recorded interview evidence was not admissible, leading to the exclusion of the contested admissions from the trial. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in handling confessions and the need to protect the rights of the accused to ensure the fairness and reliability of the evidence presented in court.

Orders