Speed v The Queen

[2001] WASCA 125

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Confessions and admissions
4. › Lies by accused as implied admissions of guilt
5. › Adequacy of Edwards direction
6. › Whether trial judge adequately identified lies relied upon
7. › Whether trial judge adequately distinguished lies going to credibility from lies said to indicate guilt
8. › Whether misdirection occasioned miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Confessions and admissions
4. › Video-taped record of interview
5. › Voluntariness
6. › Whether persistent and aggressive police questioning rendered statement involuntary
7. › Whether admission of unedited interview at request of defence counsel precluded appellate challenge
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Proviso
5. › Whether accused lost a chance of acquittal fairly open
6. › Whether jury would inevitably have convicted absent the error

Quick Take

Where the Crown relies on a substantial number of alleged lies in a circumstantial evidence case, the trial judge must clearly identify which lies are relied upon as implied admissions of guilt and exclude all other alleged lies from that category, directing the jury that those other lies go only to credibility. The judge must also identify the circumstances and events said to indicate each lie constitutes an admission against interest, and refer to the defence case in relation to the alleged lies. Pidgeon J's dissent suggests that in strong circumstantial evidence cases, the Edwards direction framework may be inappropriate and a simpler direction treating lies as one circumstance among many may be preferable.