Admissibility of Alex's Admissions: An Analysis Under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Part 1
A brief analysis of the Admissibility of Alex's Admissions in Light of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

The admissibility of Alex's admissions in the case of assault mainly hinges on different pivotal provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly sections 84, 85, 90, and 138, and the circumstances surrounding the interrogation.

Section 84 of the Evidence Act delineates the general rule that evidence of an admission made by a defendant in a criminal case is admissible against them. However, Section 85 provides exceptions to this rule if the admission was obtained improperly or in circumstances that render it unreliable. In Alex's case, the circumstances under which the police questioned raise concerns regarding the reliability and fairness of his admissions (Adam & van Golde, 2020).

There was substantial delay in informing Alex regarding his right to legal representation until after he made incriminating statements is significant. In consonance with Section 90 of the Act, it is stipulated that if a person requests to communicate with a legal advisor or other appropriate person, any questioning should be suspended until that communication occurs. In this case, the manner of informing Alex regarding his right towards accessing legal representation promptly was jeoparded by the police deliberately. This is a vivid instantiation of infringement of the provision, especially rendering his admissions inadmissible.

As far as using coercive language is concerned the police officer continually used sentences such as "you'll feel much better if you just tell us the truth" and "coming clean is the best thing you can do now." This substantially raises concerns about the voluntariness of Alex's admissions. Section 138 of the Act mandates that evidence obtained improperly or unfairly should be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The coercive nature of the questioning not only render Alex's admissions unreliable but simultaneously it is unfairly prejudicial. This necessitates exclusion according to this provision (Adam & van Golde, 2020).

On top of that the request made by Alex in terms of using the restroom and speak to his parents are also being initially denied by the officers. This is nothing but a potential infringement as well as blatant undermining of the fairness associated with the questioning process. Such denials of basic rights can necessarily be constituted from a legal standpoint as improper as well as unfair obtainment of Alex's admissions.

Part 2
The common law test of voluntariness assesses whether a confession or admission was made freely and voluntarily by the suspect, and also without any undue influence, coercion, or oppression. As far as the situation of Alex is concerned, there are several instances where blatant infringement of voluntariness towards admission can be cited by using unfair tactics.

The mental state as well as the age of Alex should be considered in this instance. As per the given vignette, it can be pointed out that Alex is diagnosed with the history of learning difficulty and anxiety which necessarily makes him more susceptible towards pressure. In such circumstances, not only he is incapable of understanding his rights or actions that should be taken, but on the similar note, consequences of his statement during police questioning is also something that is not well comprehended by Alex in difficult circumstances. The amalgamation of mental vulnerability with youth underscores the sheer gravity of ensuring that his admissions were obtained without coercion or exploitation of his condition.

In this context it is fair to mention that the conduct of the police during questioning is instrumental when it comes to ascertaining the voluntariness of Alex's admissions. However in this case the police officer iteratively utilized coercive language, such as assurances that "coming clean" would be beneficial or that he would "feel better" if he confessed. This necessarily posit a calculated attempt to influence the decision making process of Alex. Henceforth, it is fair to pinpoint that such tactics, particularly when employed against a vulnerable individual like Alex, Not only vehemently undermine the voluntariness of the statements made during interrogation, but also infringes the fundamental notion of fairness during the course of obtaining admission (Hill & Moston, 2011).

In addition to that, Alex's requests to use the restroom was denied as well as refraining him from speaking to his parents. Such acts calls for stringently questioning the officer regarding his malicious intent of blatantly violating question practices just for the sake of deriving his admissions. These denials not only demonstrate a lack of regard for Alex's basic rights but also contribute to a coercive and oppressive atmosphere during questioning. The police have effectively exerted pressure onto him into making statements against his will by depriving Alex of the opportunity to take breaks or seek support from trusted individuals.

Furthermore, the prolonged nature of the interrogation without breaks exacerbates concerns about the voluntariness of Alex's admissions. Extended periods of questioning can increase stress and fatigue, particularly for someone with anxiety and learning difficulties like Alex, thereby potentially impairing their ability to make rational and voluntary decisions (Hill & Moston, 2011).

In light of these factors, on the grounds of the common law test of voluntariness, it can be determined seamlessly that Alex's admissions were obtained in a manner inconsistent with the principles of fairness and justice. His age, mental state, and the conduct of the police during questioning all point towards potential coercion and undue influence. This raise significant doubts about the voluntariness of his statements. As such, his lawyer could arguably put forward that the admissions made by Alex is inherently involuntary and therefore inadmissible in court.

Part 3
There are numerous case laws which examples valuable precedents for assessing the admissibility of admissions in circumstances which are similar to Alex's case.

R v. Thompson (1995) NSWCCA 273:

In this case, the admissibility of admissions was considered by the court since this admission was made by a suspect with a history of mental health issues during police questioning. The court judiciously delineated the significance of affirming that admissions are obtained voluntarily and without undue influence, precisely when the individual in question is susceptible to vulnerability such as mental ailment. The decision pinpoints the sheer necessity for police to exercise caution and sensitivity when questioning suspects with mental health concerns. The manner in which it informs Alex's case revolves around the gravity of Alex's mental state. Keeping this in hindsight, the police should handle his questioning with care and consideration, which he clearly did not (Cullen et al., 2021). Thus it consolidates the argument that Alex's admissions should be scrutinized intricately for any signs of coercion or exploitation of his vulnerabilities.

R v. Ong (2005) HCA 46:

In this case, the High Court of Australia addressed the admissibility of admissions obtained during a lengthy and intense police interrogation. The importance of ascertaining the totality of the circumstances is the fundamental aspect delineated by the code in this case specifically surrounding interrogation, which entails the conduct of the police and the susceptibility of the suspect. The decision highlighted the need for courts to examine the fairness and voluntariness of admissions in light of the specific context in which they were obtained. This precedent emphasizes the necessity of evaluating the entirety of Alex's interrogation, like the length of questioning, the conduct of the police, and Alex's vulnerability due to his age and mental state. From a legal perspective is substantiates the argument that Alex's admissions should be evaluated within the broader context of his interrogation to determine their voluntariness.

R v. Singh (2010) NSWCCA 82:

In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales considered the admissibility of admissions obtained after the suspect's requests for legal representation were denied by police. The court held that such denials definitely render the admissions involuntary and inadmissible, especially if they contributed to a coercive or oppressive atmosphere during questioning. This precedent directly addresses the issue of denying a suspect's right to legal representation and its potential impact on the voluntariness of admissions. It strengthens the argument that Alex's admissions should be scrutinized closely due to the delayed notification of his right to legal representation and the initial denial of his requests for rudimentary rights (Bero et al., 2018).

Part 4

Legal Opinion on the Admissibility of Alex's Admissions

Issue: The issue at hand is whether Alex's admissions, made during police questioning in the context of his age, mental state, and the conduct of the police, are admissible in court.

Analysis:

1.Relevance of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW): The provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), particularly Sections 84, 85, 90, and 138, govern the admissibility of Alex's admissions. These sections emphasize the importance of fairness, reliability, and voluntariness in obtaining admissions, especially considering the circumstances surrounding police questioning.

2.Common Law Test of Voluntariness: The common law test of voluntariness requires that admissions be made freely and voluntarily, without coercion, oppression, or undue influence. Factors such as Alex's age, mental state, and the conduct of the police during questioning are critical in assessing the voluntariness of his admissions (Bero et al., 2018).

3.Case Law Precedents: Relevant case law examples, such as R v. Thompson, R v. Ong, and R v. Singh, provide valuable guidance on the admissibility of admissions in similar circumstances. These precedents underscore the importance of evaluating the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation and the need to consider the vulnerability of the suspect.

Conclusion:

Considering the relevant legal principles and case law, it is my reasoned opinion that Alex's admissions should be deemed inadmissible in court. Several factors contribute to this conclusion:

• Delay in informing Alex of his right to legal representation: The failure to promptly inform Alex of his right to legal representation, as mandated by Section 90 of the Evidence Act, raises concerns about the fairness of the questioning process and the voluntariness of his admissions.

• Coercive conduct of the police: The repeated use of coercive language and the denial of Alex's requests to use the restroom and speak to his parents create a coercive and oppressive atmosphere during questioning, undermining the voluntariness of his admissions.

• Vulnerability of Alex: Considering Alex's age, mental state, and history of anxiety and learning difficulties, he is particularly susceptible to influence and coercion during police questioning (Adam & van Golde, 2020). The conduct of the police, coupled with Alex's vulnerability, further supports the argument for the exclusion of his admissions.
  Therefore, it can be opiniated that Alex's admissions should be excluded from evidence due to concerns about the fairness of the interrogation process and the voluntariness of his statements.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank