An ambiguous statement by an accused person is not admissible as a confession or admission unless the words are reasonably capable of being construed as an admission of guilt. Where the context does not establish that the accused knew the specific nature of the complaint, a response to a question about the accused's presence cannot be treated as an admission of the underlying misconduct. The wrongful admission of such evidence, particularly where it is repeatedly characterised as a 'confession' throughout the trial, will warrant a retrial where it cannot be said the evidence had no influence on the jury.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.