Case Study: Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure, and Indigenous Rights

This case study analyzes a Queensland evidence law case involving a juvenile defendant, focusing on potential violations of criminal procedure and the rights of the accused. The analysis highlights concerns regarding the absence of a parent or guardian during the initial interview, the admissibility of the child's statement under the Evidence Act 1977, and the impact of police actions, including the failure to notify legal aid and potential issues related to the defendant's indigenous background. The study examines the application of relevant legislation, such as the Criminal Code 1899, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and the Justice Act 1886, to argue for the defendant's innocence and the dismissal of charges. The case also raises questions about the identification of the offender, the impact of cultural differences, and the application of the 'yes syndrome' in the context of police custody. The assignment emphasizes the importance of proper procedure and the protection of the rights of the accused, particularly vulnerable individuals.

Evidence for
Common Law States
(Qld)

Table of Contents
Video Advocacy..............................................................................................................................................................1

Video Advocacy
As per the given case scenario, Marshall has changed his plea to not guilty. There is a
main reason for this statement as it is based on 590AA argument. However, accessing the
evidential data from the police is little difficult that is Marshall’s admissions. Under CRIMINAL
CODE 1899 - SECT 590AA, where the under-aged person accused for any case, there is
requirement of the pre-trial hearing which must be conducted with the presence of parent or
guardian. Moreover, under the Evidence Act 1977, Part 2, Division 4A, affected child's evidence
recorded must be provided to judicial system where only court has the major rights to modify,
copy, deliver, recover, store and destroy any evidence that are related to the accused under-aged
recorded in Queensland.
The statement of the affected child was not taken in presence of any members which
were related to them. Family members or friends of Marshall should be present at the time when
statement was recorded. Along with this, the lady, social worker, there was no statement
mentioned about her in the case and the child has not recommended that lady, she was brought
by the officers which is offensive. The correct procedure was not followed by police for this
interview. Additionally, when the recording was taken certain part in the interview section was
inaudible. Further, according to the article 436 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000,
Recording of questioning, it must be properly taken so that evidence can be shown in the court at
the time of hearing. Along with this, the interaction between the social worker and Marshall’s
was not mentioned in the case study which can be manipulated the child to admit all the cases
due to some or other reason.
There are high chances that the person was accused due to racial factors. According to the
Act 420-421 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, Division 3, 1. police should notify
legal aid that the suspect is in custody. He was kept by officers without notice to the court which
was illegal. People of Torres Strait Islander are considered as separated. They are considered as
Australian aboriginal as they have different culture, look and traditions. Moreover, the case is
related to the yes syndrome/Gratuitous Concurrence where indigenous people are pressurized
when they are under custody. Marshall’s was also unable to enter for the bail, under the Justice
Act 1886, section 114 which under-aged person have rights.
These are all the evidence that shows that there is mistake of police and Marshall was
falsely accused. He should be relived and all the charges against him must be removed. If police
1

want to show that he is guilty they must show the evidence of admission of the child, the social
worker and interview section that was conducted when Marshall’s was kept in the custody. The
case is similar to the Lee where there was no family member present at the time of interview
section. There is no relevance of the case as per 130 Evidence Act, as his admission is not
mentioned so it is unfair to a child to keep under custody. Along with this, identification of the
offender responsible for the 85 offences cannot be established by police it is the role of Judges.
From the case, it can be clearly seen that due to cultural difference, police have arrested Marshall
and his plea of guilty must be accepted.
2