skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 51776 Find in a Library
Title: RECORDED INTERVIEWS AND THE LAW, PART 2
Journal: AUSTRALIAN POLICE JOURNAL  Volume:32  Issue:3  Dated:(JULY 1978)  Pages:148-171
Author(s): A J SING
Corporate Author: Australian Police Journal
Australia
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 24
Sponsoring Agency: Australian Police Journal
Sydney, 2001, Australia
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: A SERIES OF AUSTRALIAN COURT CASES ARE CITED WHICH ESTABLISH THAT A SUSPECT IS ENTITLED TO A COPY OF ANY STATEMENT MADE TO POLICE, THAT AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT BE EXCLUDED, AND THAT SUSPECTS HAVE OTHER RIGHTS.
Abstract: THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS EXAMINED ALL DEAL WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY INTO EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS MADE TO THE POLICE UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. THESE DECISIONS HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT IN ALL CASES IN WHICH A PERSON IS GOING TO BE CHARGED OR WILL BE ISSUED A SUMMONS, A COPY OF THE 'RECORD OF INTERVIEW' CONDUCTED WITH THE SUSPECT SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM IMMEDIATELY UPON COMPLETION OF THE INTERVIEW. WHETHER HE HAS SIGNED THE RECORD OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. WHILE AN ATTORNEY IS NOT ENTITLED AS OF RIGHT TO BE WITH A SUSPECT WHO IS HIS CLIENT DURING AN INTERVIEW WITH POLICE, REFUSAL BY THE POLICE TO ALLOW AN ATTORNEY TO BE PRESENT MAY RESULT IN EXCLUSION OF THE RECORD OF INTERVIEW AS EVIDENCE. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE BRITISH 'OLD JUDGES' RULE' REGARDING MULTIPLE SUSPECTS. THIS RULE STATES THAT WHEN MORE THAN ONE SUSPECT IS INVOLVED, EACH SHOULD BE QUESTIONED SEPARATELY, THEN EACH GIVEN COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE OTHER SUSPECTS. THE POLICE SHOULD SAY OR DO NOTHING TO INVITE REPLY. IF THE SUSPECT WISHES TO REPLY, IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS ANY OTHER RECORDED INTERVIEW. MULTIPLE QUESTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN DISALLOWED. (THESE ARE LENGTHY STATEMENTS CONTAINING MULTIPLE ALLEGATIONS WHICH MAY CAUSE CONFUSION.) SEVERAL CASES INVOLVE THE CONTINUATION OF QUESTIONING AFTER THE SUSPECT WISHES TO STOP. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT SERIOUS QUESTIONING MAY NOT CONTINUE BUT THAT THE SUSPECT CAN BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL, BRIEF INFORMATION. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARRESTING A SUSPECT FOR QUESTIONING (WHICH IS UNLAWFUL) AND QUESTIONING A SUSPECT AFTER ARREST IS ALSO EXAMINED. CASE CITATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TEXT. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Australia; Judicial decisions; Right to counsel; Rights of the accused; Suspect interrogation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=51776

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.