How the Risk of Police Coercion during Questioning is Addressed in Queensland, Australia

by ICJR | 21/09/2022 12:24 pm

Improperly obtained confessions and admissions during police questioning can be very problematic for the legitimacy and efficacy of the criminal justice system. The risk of confessions and admissions being produced through coercive questioning practices is addressed in a number of ways in Queensland, Australia. Firstly, there is legislation that regulates how police questioning is conducted, including a prohibition on using threats to produce confessions; rights for the suspect to contact another person and have them present during the questioning; and requirements to electronically record questioning. Secondly, there is legislation that requires confessions and admissions to be electronically recorded in order to be admissible in court and allows the exclusion of improperly obtained confessions and admissions. Queensland and Commonwealth legislation on the exclusion of such evidence will be compared to illustrate the differences in how this area is approached in Australia. Thirdly, the reporting and investigating process for alleged corrupt conduct or misconduct during police questioning in Queensland will be outlined in regard to the three organisations that deal with these allegations: the Queensland Police Service, the Crime and Corruption Commission, and the Queensland Human Rights Commission. In conclusion, these three topics will provide a snapshot of how Queensland addresses and minimises the risk of coercive questioning practices being used to produce improperly obtained confessions and admissions.

click here to access documents.[1]

 

 

Artikel Terkait

  • 07/02/2023 Polisi Akui Salah Prosedur Penetapan Tersangka Hasya, ICJR: Bukti Segudang Masalah dalam Proses Penyidikan mulai dari Kompetensi Penyidik Hingga Urgensi Memperkuat Pengawasan dari Jaksa Dan Pengadilan[2]
  • 20/12/2022 AUDIT KUHAP: Studi Evaluasi terhadap Keberlakuan Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia[3]
  • 20/10/2022 Judicial Scrutiny melalui Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan dalam RKUHAP[4]
  • 12/10/2022 ICJR dan YLBHI Menunggu Respons Presiden dan Kapolri terhadap Dugaan Perampasan Kemerdekaan Sewenang-Wenang terhadap Saksi Kasus Kanjuruhan oleh Aparat[5]
  • 02/09/2022 Permasalahan Penahanan PC: Sekali Lagi Tanda Pemerintah dan DPR Harus Segera Revisi KUHAP[6]

Share this:

Endnotes:
  1. click here to access documents.: https://icjr.or.id/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Lillith-Humbler-Nicholls_How-the-Risk-of-Police-Coercion-during-Questioning-is-Addressed-in-Queensland-Australia.pdf
  2. Polisi Akui Salah Prosedur Penetapan Tersangka Hasya, ICJR: Bukti Segudang Masalah dalam Proses Penyidikan mulai dari Kompetensi Penyidik Hingga Urgensi Memperkuat Pengawasan dari Jaksa Dan Pengadilan: https://icjr.or.id/polisi-akui-salah-prosedur-penetapan-tersangka-hasya-icjr-bukti-segudang-masalah-dalam-proses-penyidikan-mulai-dari-kompetensi-penyidik-hingga-urgensi-memperkuat-pengawasan-dari-jaksa-dan-pengadilan/
  3. AUDIT KUHAP: Studi Evaluasi terhadap Keberlakuan Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia: https://icjr.or.id/audit-kuhap-studi-evaluasi-terhadap-keberlakuan-hukum-acara-pidana-indonesia/
  4. Judicial Scrutiny melalui Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan dalam RKUHAP: https://icjr.or.id/judicial-scrutiny-melalui-hakim-pemeriksa-pendahuluan-dalam-rkuhap/
  5. ICJR dan YLBHI Menunggu Respons Presiden dan Kapolri terhadap Dugaan Perampasan Kemerdekaan Sewenang-Wenang terhadap Saksi Kasus Kanjuruhan oleh Aparat: https://icjr.or.id/icjr-dan-ylbhi-menunggu-respons-presiden-dan-kapolri-terhadap-dugaan-perampasan-kemerdekaan-sewenang-wenang-terhadap-saksi-kasus-kanjuruhan-oleh-aparat/
  6. Permasalahan Penahanan PC: Sekali Lagi Tanda Pemerintah dan DPR Harus Segera Revisi KUHAP: https://icjr.or.id/permasalahan-penahanan-pc-sekali-lagi-tanda-pemerintah-dan-dpr-harus-segera-revisi-kuhap/
  7. Tweet: https://twitter.com/share

Source URL: https://icjr.or.id/how-the-risk-of-police-coercion-during-questioning-is-addressed-in-queensland-australia/