Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for ANDREWS,SHATARAH Date/Time of Request: Client Identifier: Database: Citation Text: Lines: Documents:

Images: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 16:05 Eastern ANDREWS SHATARAH UKCSLREVFIND 1994 WL 1062915 29 1 0

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West and their affiliates.

1994 WL 1062915 [1994] Crim. L.R. 130 [1994] Crim. L.R. 130

Page 1

2012 Sweet & Maxwell R. v W Also known as: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 01 January 1994 Case Analysis Where Reported [1994] Crim. L.R. 130; Case Digest Subject: Criminal procedure Keywords: Juvenile offenders, Mental health, Police interviews Catchphrases: Interview, juvenile's mother mentally deficient, whether her presence at interview amounting to failure to provide juvenile with an appropriate adult to protect her Abstract: W, aged 13, was arrested for robbery and made admissions to the police in the presence of her mother. On appeal it was contended that the judge should have excluded them under s.76(2)(b) and para.C: 1(7) of the Code of Practice in force at that time because her mother, being mentally handicapped within the meaning of s.77(3), was not an appropriate adult and her presence at the interview did not provide the requisite safeguard. Held, dismissing the appeal, that it was impossible detect in the judge's ruling any error of principle in exercising his discretion to allow the admission. In his judgement, W's mother was capable of fulfilling the role of appropriate adult at the time of the interview. Whilst she was psychotic at the time, her paranoid delusions were confined to her neighbours and her thinking was rational in discussing her family. Although her memory of past events was defective and confused, she was capable of dealing rationally with current events. In any event, the interview had been fairly and properly conducted, was not overlong and W had not been put under pressure. There was nothing in the conduct of the interview or in the circumstances of the case liable to have rendered W's answers unreliable or likely to have made the admission of the interview unfair.

Appellate History Related Cases Significant Cases Cited

2012 Thomson Reuters.

1994 WL 1062915 [1994] Crim. L.R. 130 [1994] Crim. L.R. 130

Page 2

Cases Citing This Case Legislation cited Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) s.76(2)(b) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c.60) s.77(3) Journal Articles END OF DOCUMENT

2012 Thomson Reuters.