Cases LegislationBeta Notebook Research Briefs

The Queen v CS

[2012] NTSC 94

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

More

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › EVIDENCE
3. › DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
4. › s 26L Evidence Act (NT)
5. › application to exclude audio-visual evidence of EROI between accused and police
6. › police did not facilitate communication between accused and a nominated friend
7. › whether s 140 Police Administration Act (NT) not complied with
8. › accused’s friend informed by police accused was in custody
9. › accused’s friend a potential witness to offences alleged against accused
10. › evidence not excluded on this ground
1. Criminal Law
2. › EVIDENCE
3. › DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
4. › s 26L Evidence Act (NT)
5. › whether s 137 Police Administration Act (NT) not complied with
6. › accused held in police custody 32 hours before EROI conducted
7. › whether accused held beyond “reasonable period”
8. › held that accused was unlawfully detained at time of EROI
9. › evidence not excluded on this ground alone
10. › relevant to whether evidence ought be excluded on unfairness ground or public policy considerations
1. Criminal Law
2. › EVIDENCE
3. › DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
4. › s 26L Evidence Act (NT)
5. › admissions made by accused in EROI
6. › whether made voluntarily
7. › whether accused’s will overborne by police conduct
8. › adequate caution made and understood
9. › the will of the accused was not overborne
10. › statements and admissions made voluntarily
11. › evidence not excluded on this ground
1. Evidence Act (NT) s 26L

Case Details

Citation[2012] NTSC 94

CourtNTSC

JurisdictionNorthern Territory

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in

See how it works

The Queen v CS [2012] NTSC 94 — Evidence & Evidence Act (NT) S 26L — Barrister AI