Impicciatore v WA

[2020] WASCA 33

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. › Voluntariness
5. › Whether confessional statements made during video record of interview were voluntary
6. › Whether will of accused was overborne
7. › Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 140
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Improperly obtained evidence
4. › Admission under statutory discretion
5. › Whether desirability of admitting evidence outweighed undesirability
6. › Breach of detention time limits
7. › Whether contravention intentional or reckless
8. › Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), ss 140, 154, 155
1. Criminal Law
2. › Evidence
3. › Improperly obtained evidence
4. › Standard of appellate review
5. › Whether balancing exercise under s 155(2) involves discretion reviewable on House v The King principles or admits of unique outcome
6. › Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA), s 155(2)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Additional evidence on appeal
5. › Distinction between fresh evidence and new evidence
6. › Whether interests of justice require admission
7. › Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40(1)(e)

Quick Take

The case confirms that a breach of the detention time limits under s 140 of the Criminal Investigation Act 2006 (WA) resulting from an honest mistake will not preclude admission of confessional evidence under s 155(2) where the offences are serious, the evidence is probative, and the admissions were made only shortly after the expiry of lawful detention. The question whether s 155(2) involves a House v The King discretion or admits of a unique outcome remains formally open, though Quinlan CJ expressed a preliminary view favouring the discretionary characterisation.