VALE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 21
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 21 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 12/02/2001 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:32/1998 | 10 NOVEMBER 2000 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ IPP J WALLWORK J | 10/11/00 | |
| 25 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | LINDA JOYCE VALE THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Evidence Confessions and admissions Admissibility Discretion to exclude Secretly tape recorded statements made by the respondent to foster son Such evidence was the primary evidence implicating the respondent Previous refusal to answer police questions Statements voluntarily made Reliability Unfairness discretion Public policy discretion Unduly prejudicial evidence Right to silence Eliciting confessions Judges' Rules Duty to caution Seriousness of the offence Fraud Evidence Criminal trial Exclusion of evidence Reformulation of tests Voluntariness test Unfairness test Public policy test Unduly prejudicial test |
Legislation: | Listening Devices Act 1978 (WA) Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA) |
Case References: | Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1 Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257 Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508 Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550 McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 R v Broyles (1991) 3 SCR 595 R v Herbert (1990) 2 SCR 151 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159 Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656 Wendo v The Queen (1963) 109 CLR 559 Green v The Queen (1989) 95 FLR 301 R v Christo [1992] QB 979 Rothman v The Queen (1981) 1 SCR 640 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : VALE -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 21 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- IPP J
WALLWORK J
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Evidence - Confessions and admissions - Admissibility - Discretion to exclude - Secretly tape recorded statements made by the respondent to foster son - Such evidence was the primary evidence implicating the respondent - Previous refusal to answer police questions - Statements voluntarily made - Reliability - Unfairness discretion - Public policy discretion - Unduly prejudicial evidence - Right to silence - Eliciting confessions - Judges' Rules - Duty to caution - Seriousness of the offence - Fraud
Evidence - Criminal trial - Exclusion of evidence - Reformulation of tests - Voluntariness test - Unfairness test - Public policy test - Unduly prejudicial test
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Listening Devices Act 1978 (WA)
Surveillance Devices Act 1998 (WA)
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D P A Moen
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC
Solicitors:
Appellant : David Manera
Respondent : State Director…
Continue reading Vale v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Vale v The Queen [2001] WASCA 21
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Vale v The Queen, the High Court of Australia addressed the admissibility of secret recordings made by the foster son of the respondent, who was on trial for fraud. The respondent had previously refused to answer police questions regarding the charges. The key issue was whether the secretly recorded conversations, which implicated the respondent in the fraud, should be admitted as evidence in the trial. The court had to consider the principles governing the admissibility of confessions and admissions, including the discretion to exclude such evidence on the grounds of unreliability, unfairness, public policy, and undue prejudice.
The court examined the principles established in previous cases, such as Papakosmas v The Queen, and reformulated the tests for admissibility. The court held that the evidence in question was voluntary, reliable, and not obtained through unfair or improper means. The voluntariness test required the court to consider whether the respondent had made the statements freely and without coercion. The unfairness test involved assessing whether the admission of the evidence would be unfair to the respondent. The public policy test required the court to consider whether the admission of the evidence would be contrary to public policy. Lastly, the unduly prejudicial test required the court to consider whether the evidence was so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value.
After careful consideration, the court concluded that the evidence was admissible as it met the criteria for voluntariness, reliability, and fairness. The court held that the admission of the evidence did not contravene any public policy considerations and was not unduly prejudicial. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision to admit the secretly recorded statements as evidence. The court found that the evidence played a crucial role in establishing the respondent's involvement in the fraud, and its exclusion would have been detrimental to the administration of justice.
The court examined the principles established in previous cases, such as Papakosmas v The Queen, and reformulated the tests for admissibility. The court held that the evidence in question was voluntary, reliable, and not obtained through unfair or improper means. The voluntariness test required the court to consider whether the respondent had made the statements freely and without coercion. The unfairness test involved assessing whether the admission of the evidence would be unfair to the respondent. The public policy test required the court to consider whether the admission of the evidence would be contrary to public policy. Lastly, the unduly prejudicial test required the court to consider whether the evidence was so prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value.
After careful consideration, the court concluded that the evidence was admissible as it met the criteria for voluntariness, reliability, and fairness. The court held that the admission of the evidence did not contravene any public policy considerations and was not unduly prejudicial. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision to admit the secretly recorded statements as evidence. The court found that the evidence played a crucial role in establishing the respondent's involvement in the fraud, and its exclusion would have been detrimental to the administration of justice.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.