The 2 am Search
Dylan is 16. At 2 am on a Sunday, two police officers attend his family home in Launceston after an anonymous tip that he was responsible for $4,200 of graffiti on a council bus shelter. Dylan's mother lets them in. The officers search his bedroom without a warrant, find six spray cans in a backpack and seize his phone. Dylan is taken to the station and interviewed for 95 minutes. No lawyer or guardian is present and the interview is not recorded; the officers take handwritten notes. Dylan admits spraying the shelter, and near the end says, 'I want to stop now.' The officers continue for another 20 minutes. The prosecution intends to rely on both the admissions and the spray cans.
1. Identify the grounds on which Dylan's lawyer could object to the admissions, and explain what the court would weigh in deciding whether to exclude them.
Read the worked answer
Exclusion is discretionary, not automatic. The Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) gives the court several overlapping discretions:
- Reliability of admissions (s 85): an admission made in the course of official questioning is inadmissible unless the circumstances were such that the truth of the admission was unlikely to be adversely affected. A 95-minute interview of a 16-year-old, with no adult and no recording, is precisely the kind of circumstance this section targets.
- Unfairness (s 90): the court may refuse to admit an admission if, having regard to all the circumstances, it would be unfair to use it against the accused. The absence of a support person and the failure to stop when Dylan asked are strong points.
- Improperly obtained evidence (s 138): evidence obtained improperly is excluded unless the desirability of admitting it outweighs the impropriety.
The court weighs the probative value of the admissions against the unfairness and the public interest in not condoning improper police conduct. The prosecution would point out that the admissions are corroborated by the physical evidence, which reduces the risk that they are unreliable, and that the officers did not use threats or violence. The defence would stress that without a recording the court cannot know what caution was given or what was said in the unrecorded room. Dylan's age is a significant factor: a statutory discretion exercised without regard to a child's vulnerability is likely to be exercised wrongly.
2. Would the spray cans be excluded? Apply s 138 and explain how the court balances the competing factors.
Read the worked answer
Section 138 is engaged because the search was warrantless. The officers relied on the mother's consent. That raises genuine questions: a parent can consent to a search of premises they control, but the scope of that consent - particularly over a 16-year-old's private space at 2 am - may be narrower than the officers assumed, and consent obtained in the presence of two police officers is not always freely given.
But s 138 does not create an automatic exclusionary rule the way the United States Fourth Amendment does. The court must weigh:
- The impropriety: was it deliberate, reckless, or a genuine misapprehension? Was a power available that the officers failed to use properly?
- The consequences: did the impropriety undermine the fairness of the trial, or was it a procedural irregularity?
- The evidence itself: spray cans are physical, objective and highly probative. Unlike an admission, they cannot be fabricated by police pressure on the suspect, and their relevance does not depend on anything Dylan said.
On these facts the spray cans would most likely be admitted, with the judge or magistrate commenting on the manner of the search. The admissions are far more vulnerable, because they depend entirely on how Dylan was treated. Note also that the Evidence Act contains no general right to have unlawfully obtained evidence excluded; the discretion is the protection, and how it is exercised is itself a matter of judgement.
3. If the court excludes the admissions, what happens to the case? Where is the matter heard, and who bears the burden of proof?
Read the worked answer
Because Dylan is 16, the matter is heard in the Youth Justice Division of the Magistrates Court (commonly called the Children's Court), the court that deals with young people charged with summary offences. The offence is summary, so there is no jury - a magistrate decides both law and fact.
Excluding the admissions does not end the case automatically. The prosecution can still rely on the spray cans, on the graffiti itself, on CCTV, on the anonymous tip (which is weak on its own), and on any other admissible evidence. The magistrate assesses the evidence as a whole.
However, if the admissions were the only evidence placing Dylan at the shelter, and the prosecution cannot establish that the spray cans connect him to that particular offence - for example, if no forensic link exists - the prosecution may offer no evidence and the charge would be dismissed. The prosecution bears the burden of proving every element beyond reasonable doubt; Dylan has nothing to prove.
If a conviction does follow, the sentencing approach must reflect youth justice principles: rehabilitation and the least restrictive option consistent with the offence and community safety. The procedural failures by police do not become an element of the offence, but they are relevant to the fairness of the process as a whole.