The State v Anton Ames Turik and Wickie Jack Peltam [1986] PNGLR 138

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Pratt J
• Citation: [1986] PNGLR 138
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1986
• Judgement Number: N548

Full Title: The State v Anton Ames Turik and Wickie Jack Peltam [1986] PNGLR 138

National Court: Pratt J

Judgment Delivered: June 1986

1 Confessions—judicial discretion—Judges Rules 1912

2 Criminal law—evidence—confessional statement made while in custody prior to taking of record of interview—no ambiguity contained in confessional statement—essential elements of offence admitted—subsequent record excluded under Judges Rules No 3—amounts to persistent questioning while in custody and no mere questioning in order to ascertain perpetrator of offence

EVIDENCE—Confessions and admissions—Discretion to exclude—Unfairness to accused—Record of interview—Taken in custody—Taken eighteen hours after voluntary confession—Breach of Judges' Rules 1912, r3—Rejected in exercise of discretion.

CRIMINAL LAW—Evidence—Confessions and admissions—Discretion to exclude—Unfairness to accused—Record of interview—Taken in custody—Taken eighteen hours after voluntary confession—Breach of Judges' Rules 1912, r3—Rejected in exercise of discretion.

On the evening of 22 September an accused was taken into custody at Bogia in connection with the robbery of a liquor store; he was detained in the police cells until 24 September when he was moved to Madang. On 24 September the accused made a lengthy confessional statement which the trial judge found to be made voluntarily. On 25 September the accused was questioned at length and a detailed record of interview made.

On objection to the admissibility of the record of interview,

Held:

(1) In exercising the judicial discretion to exclude evidence of confessions and admissions on the ground of unfairness regard may be had to the Judges' Rules 1912, as part of the underlying law of Papua New Guinea.

The State v Win Kwainfelin [1986] PNGLR 106, followed.

(2) Rule 3 of the Judges' Rules 1912, which states that "persons in custody should not be questioned without the usual caution being first administered" is not to be interpreted as encouraging or authorising the questioning or cross–examination of a person who has been taken into custody and charged.

(3) In the circumstances, the detailed questioning of the accused some eighteen hours after he had made a full confessional statement was contrary to the Judges' Rules, r3.

(4) The court should exercise its discretion to reject the record of interview.

R v Haua–Kekedo (1958) No119 and The State v Win Kwainfelin [1986] PNGLR 106 referred to

Voire Dire

During the course of a trial on charges of armed robbery objection was taken to the tender of confessional material and a record of interview conducted and recorded some eighteen hours after the confessional material had been obtained.

___________________________

Pratt J: In this trial the two counsel for the accused have objected to the admission of confessional material on the basis of lack of voluntariness and have requested that the judicial discretion be exercised in favour of each accused. I deal first of all with the matter of Anton Ames. Anton was detained late on the night of 22 September 1985, a short while after a robbery had been committed, at the house of the council clerk near Bogia, a vehicle taken and subsequently a liquor store belonging to Bogia Hotel Pty Ltd had been broken into and liquor had been removed. The State alleges that both Anton and Wickie were responsible for the robbery and that a shotgun was used to cause the council clerk Mr George Undae to hand over the keys to the council vehicle. It was also alleged that some money was taken as well during the robbery.

Anton was detained by Sgt Major Purai of Bogia Police Station after the Sergeant had ascertained from a relative of the two men that his shotgun had gone missing that night. Anton was kept in the cells all day on the following day, that is 23 September and he together with Wickie and a number of others, were placed in a line–up on 24 September. This was about 8 o'clock in the morning. There is no dispute that such line–up did occur. According to Sgt Major Purai, it seems that the line–up was for the purpose of the various suspects indicating to the police what items had been stolen by them. Apparently this occurred just before the suspects were put into the transport. There was some attempt at property identification. I do not believe that...