Chitambala v The Queen: 1961

Clayden ACJ said: ‘In any criminal trial the accused has the right to elect not to give evidence at the conclusion of the Crown case. To regard evidence given by him on the question of the admissibility as evidence in the trial itself would mean either that he must be deprived of that right if he wishes properly to contest the admissibility of a statement, or that, to preserve that right, he must abandon another right in a fair trial, the right to prevent inadmissible statements being led in evidence against him . . To me it seems clear that deprivation of rights in this manner, and the changing of a trial of admissibility into a full investigation of the merits, cannot be part of a fair criminal trial.’


Clayden AFCJ


[1961] R and N 166



Cited by:

ApprovedWong Kam-Ming v The Queen PC 20-Dec-1978
The voir dire system allows a defendant to give his evidence on the limited issues surrounding the circumstances under which his statement was made as to the admissibility of the confession, without infringing his right to elect not to give evidence . .
CitedRegina v Mushtaq HL 21-Apr-2005
The defendant was convicted of fraud charges. He sought to have excluded statements made in interview on the basis that they had been obtained by oppressive behaviour by the police. His wife was very seriously ill in hospital and he had made the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.224424