Armed robbery and secret recording
- Michael Carr was arrested and questioned by Western Australian police in connection with an armed robbery.
- During police questioning in the interview room Carr made no admissions of guilt andindicated he would not answer questions without a lawyer present.
- When Carr and police officers had an informal conversation in a police lock-up, Carr described his participation in the armed robbery. The conversation was recorded by surveillance cameras in the police lock-up (the police knew that these cameras were in place, but Carr did not know he was being recorded).
4.The relevant legislation to this case was section 570D(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Western Australia. The legislation said: “On the trial of an accused person for a serious offence, evidence of any admission by the accused person shall not be admitted unless the evidence is a videotape on which is a recording of the admission.” Section 570(1) then defines videotape as “any videotape on which is recorded an interview.”
5.Carr took issue with the meaning of the word ‘interview’. Carr argued that his admissionswere not recorded in the way that section 570 of the Criminal Code required. Although the discussion was recorded on videotape, Carr claimed that it was not an ‘interview’ andtherefore could not be allowed into evidence.
6.The High Court decided that ‘interview’ in section 570 should be interpreted broadly. The majority of the judges decided the word ‘interview’ did not just include a formal interrogation, but any conversation between police and the suspect. Therefore, the recorded admission by Carr in the lock-up was a videotaped interview as required by the Code and could be used as evidence against him.
7.When a court interprets a statute, a precedent may be set for future cases to follow. This precedent in the Carr case was about the word ‘interview’ including any conversation between police and thesuspect.In future cases, Section 570D(2)(a) of the Criminal Code of Western Australia and the precedent regarding the interpretation of the word ‘interview’must be read together to determine the complete law.
8.The words in legislation may be ambiguous, and have severalpossible clear and legitimate, but contradictory, meanings. In the Carr Case, the HighCourt needed to decide if the words “videotape on which is recorded an interview” could mean a video recording of a casual conversation between police and a suspect; or a video recording of a very formal question-and-answer discussion between police and a suspect.