Rees, Neil --- "Rockman v Stevens (Receiving stolen goods-Anunga Rules-suitability of prisoner's friend-appeal)" [1981] AboriginalLawB 7; (1981) 1(1) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 6

• Rockman V Stevens
• Receiving Stolen Goods-Anunga Rules-Suitability Of Prisoner's Friend-Appeal.

---

Rockman v Stevens

Receiving stolen goods-Anunga Rules-suitability of prisoner's friend-appeal.

Rockman v Stevens

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory at Alice Springs (Muirhead J)

13 October 1980

Casenote by Neil Rees

On 5 February 1980 the appellant was convicted, at the Magistrates Court at Hooker Creek, of a charge of receiving stolen goods. At that hearing counsel for the appellant unsuccessfully objected to the admission into evidence of a record of interview conducted between a police officer and the appellant. John Gibson attended the interview as the prisoner's friend for Rockman, who is an Aboriginal man. Gibson, an Aboriginal boy, was between twelve and fourteen years of age at the time of the interview. He had previously been questioned by the police about the theft of the goods, which Rockman was charged with illegally receiving. The appellant was given no opportunity to select a prisoner's friend, and merely assented to the question, 'Are you happy that John Gibson is sitting here while we talk?' it was argued on appeal that Gibson was a totally unsuitable prisoner's friend and that the record of interview should have been excluded from evidence.

Muirhead J made the following comments in the course of his judgment

The appellant himself was given no opportunity of selecting a prisoner's friend. The purpose of the presence of a prisoner's friend nor of his entitlement to a prisoner's friend was not explained to the appellant. It was as though the prisoner's friend was introduced purely on the police discretion into the interview room rather like a piece of appropriate furniture. That may sound a little bit cynical, but when one bears in mind that the prisoner's friend selected was in fact a person who had apparently been questioned by the police in connection with the theft of the money the appellant was alleged to have illegally received, one appreciates that there was a very close or a potentially close criminal relationship involved.

Much has been said about the requirements of the Anunga rules. When they were pronounced by His Honour the Chief Justice, or the Chief Judge as he then was, back in 1975 the intention was not to facilitate police investigation, not to make it more difficult, but basically to ensure that the courts could act on what Aboriginal people told the police with the same degree of confidence as the courts will act where true volumariness is proved from a white person who is dealing with a white policeman, because our experience in those days was that there was a very great capacity in an Aboriginal person to say what he believed the policeman wanted him to say and to answer affirmatively questions which could be embarrassing, the answers frequently not conveying what was actually in the prisoner's mind, and it was for that reason the rules were laid down. It was emphasised that they could not be empiric; that they could only be a guide. I suppose in those days we did not envisage the multitude of situations which could and have arisen. Nevertheless I personally regard them still as a useful guide and I believe the warning the Chief Justice then pronounced to the effect that police officers who do not conform with them are apt to find that the interviews then recorded will not see the light of day insofar as the courts are concerned.

It thus casts an onus on a police officer to use his common sense, his understanding of the Anunga rules and his understanding of the community with whom he lives, his understanding of the person with whom he is dealing in selecting or assisting the prisoner or the accused to find an appropriate next friend. It is idle to deal with all the circumstances which can arise. I would only say that it would be unusual that a person in trouble with the police in the police cells, in the custody of the police for the purposes of questioning, would be found appropriate. It would be even more unusual when that person was in the custody or presence of the police for reasons associated with the offence for which the person involved is being questioned. It would even be more unusual if such a person would be found or classified as appropriate.

It would be, I would say, extremely rarely that a person with those qualifications could be utilised when he had not reached the age of maturity, when he was twelve to fourteen to fifteen years of age. This is not a case where the appellant asked that John Gibson be present. He assented, as one would expect I suppose the average Aboriginal at Hooker Creek to so assent, to the fact that he was happy that 'John Gibson is sitting here while we talk'. His happiness, of course, did not go to the question of his understanding that alternatives were or may have been available to him.

The appeal was upheld and the conviction quashed.