Confession Admissibility In Nsw

Summary

In New South Wales, confessions obtained under duress or improper police conduct may be inadmissible. Sues confession could be challenged due to Sgt Casss coercive tactics. Key sections of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) include Section 84, which excludes admissions influenced by violence or threats, and Section 85, which addresses the reliability of admissions during official questioning. Relevant case law includes R v Swaffield, R v Lee, and McDermott v The King, emphasizing the importance of voluntariness and the impact of police conduct on confession admissibility.

Full Conversation

i would like you add case law and section of the evidence law act nsw to respond every evidentiary issue in tihs problem

Sure, I can help with that. Here’s the relevant information from the Evidence Act * (NSW) and some case law that might be applicable to Sue’s confession issue:

Key Sections from the Evidence Act * (NSW):
- Section *: Exclusion of admissions influenced by violence and certain other conduct. This section provides that evidence of an admission is not admissible unless the court is satisfied that the admission was not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct, or by a threat of such conduct.
- Section *: Criminal proceedings - reliability of admissions by accused. This section states that admissions made during official questioning are not admissible unless the circumstances in which the admission was made were such as to make it unlikely that the truth of the admission was adversely affected.

Relevant Case Law:
- R v Swaffield (*) * CLR *: This case highlighted the importance of the voluntariness of a confession and the influence of police conduct on the reliability of an admission.
- R v Lee (*) * CLR *: This case emphasized that a confession must be voluntary and not obtained by threats or promises.
- McDermott v The King (*) * CLR *: This case established that any inducement, threat, or promise made by a person in authority could render a confession inadmissible.

Points to Challenge the Confession:
- Voluntariness: Sue’s confession may be challenged on the basis that it was not made voluntarily. The pressure and manipulation by Sgt Cass could be grounds for exclusion.
- Improper Police Conduct: The conduct of Sgt Cass in suggesting that Gary had implicated Sue could be seen as coercive, thereby influencing Sue’s admission.
Would you like more detailed information on a specific aspect of this issue or guidance on how to proceed with the challenge in court?

Whilst driving home from a party in January *, Jenny is involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle on the Pacific Highway. She is injured badly and sues the other driver, Garry, in the District Court of NSW for damages of $*,*. In the car with Jenny at the Under cross-examination Carly is asked about a conversation that she heard between Jenny and the bartender at the party which included words to the following effect: Jenny: Bartender: “Can I have a glass of wine please.” “You’ve had a few already. Be careful if you are driving.” The bartender is not called to give evidence. The defence provide evidence that in the weeks prior to the hearing, * attempts were made to contact the bartender through a mobile telephone number given to them by his employer, but he did not answer. A message was left on each occasion. Discuss the evidentiary issues that arise out of the above.

Sure, I can help with that. Here are the key evidentiary issues that arise from this scenario based on the Evidence Act * (NSW):
*. Hearsay Evidence (Section *)
- Carly's testimony about the conversation between Jenny and the bartender could be considered hearsay since it is an out-of-court statement being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
*. Attempts to Contact the Bartender
- The defence's evidence about the attempts to contact the bartender may be relevant under Section *(*)(c) which allows for certain hearsay evidence if the maker of the statement is unavailable and reasonable steps have been taken to find them.
*. Relevance (Section *)
- The conversation's relevance to the case must be established. It could indicate Jenny's state of intoxication, which may impact liability and damages.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these points or further assistance with your case?

but whatr problem is when they bartender didnt attend is Dunkel JOnes inference or Brown v Dunn

Case Rating: *
To address your question, let's discuss the concepts of the Dunkel inference and the rule in Browne v Dunn:
- Dunkel Inference: This refers to the inference that may be drawn against a party who fails to present a witness or evidence that would naturally be expected to support their case. In your scenario, the bartender's absence could lead to an inference against the defence if they were expected to call the bartender as a witness to support their case.
- Browne v Dunn: This rule requires that if you intend to rely on a particular piece of evidence to contradict a witness, you must put that evidence to the witness so they have a chance to respond. If this rule is breached, the court may exclude the contradicting evidence or give it less weight.
The absence of the bartender could potentially invoke the Dunkel inference if the defence was expected to call the bartender to support their case. The rule in Browne v Dunn would apply if the defence failed to challenge the bartender's statements during Carly's testimony.
Would you like more information on how these principles apply to your case?

yes, does any of this cases apply there? First-hand hearsay exceptions (a) Availability and requirements– EA ss *, *, *– Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Limited (No *) (*) * ALR * (KPT [*.*])– The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Franklin [*] NSWCA * (KPT [*.*]

Case Rating: *
To address your question, here are the relevant points:
- First-hand hearsay exceptions under the Evidence Act * (NSW):
- Section *: Hearsay rule – exceptions – representations in business records.
- Section *: Hearsay rule – exceptions – evidence of a representation about employment, business or professional records.
- Section *: Notice to be given.

Relevant Cases:
- Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Limited (No *) (*) * ALR *: Pertains to the requirements for hearsay exceptions in business records.
- The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Franklin [*] NSWCA *: Discusses the application of hearsay exceptions in legal proceedings.
Would you like more detailed information on these sections or cases?

does this apply here?

Case Rating: *
Based on the information provided, it seems like you are dealing with multiple legal issues, including the admissibility of confessions and hearsay evidence. To assist you better, could you clarify which specific legal issue you need more information on?

where are you based

Case Rating: *
We provide legal information and assistance for New South Wales. How can I help you further with your legal issues?

do yiu have a better version long questions?

Case Rating: *
I can help you refine the questions. It looks like you’re dealing with multiple legal issues, and I can provide information on each one. Could you specify which legal issue you would like to focus on first? This will help me provide the most relevant information for your case.

Confession Admissibility In Nsw

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats