F G v The Queen

[2012] VSCA 84

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Admission of edited audio recording and transcript
5. › Whether probative value outweighed prejudice
6. › Whether editing disguised extent of deletions
7. › Whether prosecutor's reliance on materials in final address was misleading
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Directions to jury
5. › Adequacy of directions regarding audio recording and transcript
6. › Whether trial judge adequately directed jury on limitations of recording and transcript
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal against conviction
3. › Miscarriage of justice
4. › Failure of trial counsel to object
5. › Whether absence of objection at trial precludes appellate intervention
6. › Whether egregious departure from due process overrides absence of objection
1. Evidence
2. › Audio recordings
3. › Edited recordings
4. › Admissibility
5. › Whether edited recording should have been admitted
6. › Whether editing process disguised extent of deletions
7. › Requirement that accused's exculpatory statements be before jury

Quick Take

An edited audio recording and transcript should not be admitted into evidence where the probative value is slight compared to the prejudice, particularly where the editing disguises the extent and location of deletions. Where an accused's responses on a recording are unintelligible, the accused is entitled to have exculpatory material before the jury. An egregious departure from due process resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice will warrant appellate intervention even where trial counsel failed to object to the admission of the evidence.