Eyo v WA

[2019] WASCA 129

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Confessional statements
4. › Admissibility
5. › Voluntariness
6. › Whether caution understood
7. › Whether second limb of caution properly explained through interpreter
8. › Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 138(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Confessional statements
4. › Discretion to exclude
5. › Unfairness discretion
6. › Aboriginal suspect
7. › Anunga guidelines
8. › Whether interview should have been excluded where suspect repeatedly stated wish to remain silent
9. › Whether police respected right to silence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Wrong decision on question of law
5. › Appellate review of discretion to admit evidence
6. › House v The King principles
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(3)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Judgment of acquittal or retrial
4. › Whether interests of justice require retrial where appellant has served non-parole period
5. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(5)

Quick Take

The caution administered to a suspect has two limbs, both of which must be understood: the right not to answer questions, and the fact that any answers may be used in evidence. Where an interpreter fails to properly convey the second limb, and police continue questioning after the suspect has repeatedly stated a wish to remain silent (particularly where a lawyer has communicated that wish in writing), the unfairness discretion requires exclusion of the resulting interview. An extensive criminal history does not, without more, establish understanding of the caution by an Aboriginal suspect with limited English.