Police officers may put to a suspect during interview evidence in their possession that is inconsistent with the suspect's account, provided the questioning does not become oppressive or unfair. The prohibition on 'cross-examination' at the interview stage is properly understood as a prohibition on questioning involving undue pressure or persistence, or designed to break down answers, or conveying disbelief or ridicule — not a prohibition on putting contradictory facts. When a suspect requests a lawyer, the question is whether the words used, in context, constituted a request that questioning cease, not whether the request was motivated by a genuine desire for legal assistance. The dissent (Wallwork J) would have held that once a suspect requests a lawyer, the interview should stop and the suspect should not be further questioned or cross-examined.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.