The appellant, a young offender, appealed conviction and sentence, arguing that a videotaped police statement was inadmissible because it was a continuation of earlier inadmissible statements.
The Court of Appeal held that the governing authority did not establish hard and fast rules on admissibility where the statutory criteria had been met, and upheld the trial judge’s findings that the statement was not tainted and that the appellant wanted to acknowledge responsibility.
The court found no error in admitting the videotaped statement.
Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence of four months open custody and community service was not demonstrably unfit.
