Erasito v Shipard

[1999] WASCA 132

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Evidence
2. › Confessions and admissions
3. › Video record of interview
4. › Voluntariness
5. › Whether police decision to charge constituted inducement or threat
6. › Whether confession voluntary where accused chose to speak after being told he would be charged
1. Evidence
2. › Confessions and admissions
3. › Discretion to exclude
4. › Unfairness
5. › Whether unfair to admit interview where accused repeatedly expressed wish not to speak and to consult solicitor
6. › Whether absence of urgency relevant to exercise of discretion
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal from magistrate
4. › Admission of evidence
5. › Substantial miscarriage of justice

Quick Take

Where an accused has clearly and repeatedly indicated a wish not to be interviewed at that time and to consult a solicitor, and there is no urgency requiring the interview to proceed immediately, the discretion to exclude the resulting confession on grounds of unfairness should be exercised in favour of exclusion. The absence of urgency and the existence of prior delays are significant factors weighing against admission.