Where police plant an undercover officer in cells to re-question an accused who has already been formally interviewed and charged, and the purpose is to conduct a second interview on all aspects of the offence without legislative safeguards, the resulting conversation will be excluded on public policy grounds as a reckless disregard of the accused's rights. The fact that the accused had earlier waived the right to silence does not provide a warrant for surreptitious re-interview. However, undercover cell questioning may be justified where the objective is specific and urgent (e.g., locating a victim or weapon) rather than general re-interrogation.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.