Law 131: Tutorial Questions.

1) What is the issue in this case?

Whether the staement issued by the defendant (Mataia) should be excluded from trial on the
grounds of unfairness.
2) What are the material facts?
M charged with setting fire to a property
police unlawfully entered the house of the defendant whilst she was sleeping.
M was only just 17 years of age, believed she had no alternative but to comply to the
demands of the police.
Police interview wasn't videotaped
gave evidence that she committed the offence so that she could leave
record of the interview was incomplete.
3) Why is R v Bradley referred to?
The case is referred to because the point that is made about that case is that it shows that the police
authority to enter private property is defined in terms of implied license and what is reasonable in
the circumstances to enable a police officer to communicate with the occupant.
4) What does the Court hold (in R v Mataia) in respect of Rv Bradley?
That after knocking on the door and receiving no reply, the police officers had no reason to believe
that anyone was home. They also had no legal authority to enter the property in the first place as
they did not have a warrant.
5) Why is R v Dacombe referred to?
Demonstrates the whole point of interviews being video recorded is that they are supposed show
statements by suspects being made freely and voluntarily, untainted by denial if legal assistance,
oppression, leading questions or cross-examination. It establishes that another reason for video
recording interviews is to eliminate the problem that we see in R v Mataia of just what was said in
the interview room.
6) What does the court hold (in Rv Mataia) in respect of R v Dacombe?
Reason for video recording interviews is to eliminate the problem that we see in R v Mataia, where
there is confusion as to just what was said in the interview room.
7) What is the decision in this case?
The decision is that the statement should not be admitted on the grounds that the prosecution has
not established beyond reasonable doubt that it was made voluntarily, and, because there are
considerable concern about elements of unfairness surrounding the taking of the statement
8) What is the ratio decidendi?
a statement that is taken in unfair circumstances cannot be admitted by the prosecution as
evidence in a trial.

 Suspects are not obliged to co-operate with police if a warrant hasn't been issued.
9) What effect does this judgement have in terms of the doctrine of precedent?
No effect as only decisions that are made in higher appellate courts are binding on lower courts and
no court is bound by its own previous decisions.
10) What facts would need to be changed for the judge to accept M's statement as admissable?
If the police had a warrant to enter the property.
If it became apparent that the defendant was fully aware of her rights and obligations when
it came to co-operating with the police.
A video recording of the police interview in order to clarify what was and wasn't said during
the interview.