Police questioning that combines veiled threats to continue 'tough' questioning, repeated expressions of belief in the suspect's guilt, and misleading suggestions about a co-offender's statements constitutes impropriety warranting discretionary exclusion of the interview. A jury direction on lies that permits the jury to use lies as evidence of guilt where the motive was to 'distance' the accused from the crime is inadequate where there are innocent explanations for such distancing; a full Edwards direction addressing competing explanations is required. The absence of reasons from the original judge does not of itself justify disregard of that judge's voir dire ruling under s 285AB CLCA.
The full text is available to signed-in members.