The State of Western Australia v Edmonds - [2016] WASC 84

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- EDMONDS [2016] WASC 84

CORAM: MARTINO J

HEARD: 14 MARCH 2016

DELIVERED : 14 MARCH 2016

FILE NO/S: INS 285 of 2015

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
ZOE ELIZABETH EDMONDS
Defence

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Admissibility of interview of accused - Unfairness discretion - Public policy discretion

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Interview inadmissible

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution : Mr D T Carlson
Defence: Ms N Stewart

Solicitors:

Prosecution : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Defence: Natasha Stewart, Barrister

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; (1998) 192 CLR 159
Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656
Wright v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 199; (2010) 43 WAR 1

MARTINO J: The accused is charged with armed robbery. The trial of the prosecution is listed to commence on 9 May 2016.
The accused objects to the admissibility of an electronic record of an interview of her conducted by police officers on 20 May 2015 and applies, pursuant to s 98(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), for an order before the trial commences that the record of interview be ruled inadmissible.

The State's case

The State's case is that in the afternoon of 20 May 2015 the accused and a co-accused Ben Mitchell were in a Mazda sedan on Spencer Street in Bunbury.
Mr Mitchell alighted from the Mazda and entered a pharmacy in Spencer Street. The accused parked the Mazda nearby on Francis Street.
Mr Mitchell approached the pharmacy counter and brandished a syringe. He handed a sheet of paper to an assistant in the pharmacy and said: 'I want what's on this list.'
The sheet of paper contained the word 'Cash', a list of medication and the word 'Now'.
Pharmacy staff gave Mr Mitchell medication and cash. He left the pharmacy and went to the Mazda where the accused was waiting for him. Several witnesses at the pharmacy followed Mr Mitchell. His movements were video recorded. Mr Mitchell entered the front passenger seat of the Mazda. One of the witnesses smashed open the passenger side window and took hold of Mr Mitchell's arm. The accused drove away, causing the witness to lose hold of Mr Mitchell's arm.
A short time later police officers located the Mazda travelling south on Bussell Highway in Gelorup. The accused and Mr Mitchell were in the car along with the stolen medication and cash. Mr Mitchell was driving.
The accused and Mr Mitchell were arrested. The accused was interviewed at the Bunbury police station approximately two hours after she was arrested. An interview of Mr Mitchell commenced but it did not proceed due to his intoxication from medication.
Mr Mitchell has pleaded guilty and the trial is to be of the accused alone.
The accused's counsel has…

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 State of Western Australia v Edmonds

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Edmonds [2016] WASC 84
Case: [2016] WASC 84
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of Western Australia brought an appeal against the decision of the District Court to exclude a police interview of the accused, Mr Edmonds, from evidence. The District Court found that the interview was unfair and should be excluded due to a breach of legal professional privilege. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal raised issues concerning the admissibility of the interview, the application of the unfairness discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), and the public policy discretion under section 138A of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the District Court was correct in finding the police interview unfair and whether the exclusion of the evidence was justified under the statutory discretions. The Court had to consider the balance between the probative value of the evidence and the unfairness caused by the breach of legal professional privilege, as well as the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The Court also needed to examine if the exclusion of the evidence would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not err in finding the police interview unfair due to the breach of legal professional privilege. The Court emphasised that the right to legal advice is fundamental to the administration of justice and that breaches of this privilege can have significant consequences. The Court found that the unfairness discretion under section 138 of the Act applied, as the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to uphold the importance of the privilege. Additionally, the public policy discretion under section 138A was considered, and the Court concluded that excluding the evidence was necessary to maintain the public's confidence in the legal system.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Court to exclude the police interview from evidence, affirming that the interests of justice required the exclusion to protect the integrity of the legal profession. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused remained in place.

Orders