An admission made by an accused in response to a police document that overstates the strength of the Crown case may be excluded under s 90 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) as unfair, even where the error was inadvertent and the accused was properly cautioned. The focus of s 90 is on whether it would be unfair to use the evidence, not merely on voluntariness. The provision of a document containing a material error that overstates the Crown case may constitute an impropriety under s 138, even absent deliberate or reckless conduct, though the balancing test may still favour admission. An Edwards lie must relate to a material fact in the case, and if the factual foundation for the materiality is removed (e.g., by a ruling limiting the admissible evidence), the lie may cease to qualify.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.