This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
relates to admissions by defendants in a criminal proceeding. Subclause (1) sets out that the relevant admissions under the clause are either—
an admission made to or in the presence of an investigating official (a defined term), who at that time was performing functions in connection with the investigation of the commission, or possible commission, of an offence; or
an admission made as a result of an act of another person who was, and who the defendant knew or reasonably believed to be, capable of influencing the decision whether a prosecution should be brought or continued.
In comparison, section 85 of the UEAs is limited to an admission made "in the course of questioning". The Note to subclause (1) makes it clear that this clause addresses the interpretation of the term "in the course of official questioning" expressed by the majority in the decision of the High Court of Australia in Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216. The majority held that the phrase "in the course of official questioning" in a particular Act "marks out a period of time running from when questioning commenced to when it ceased". This is a narrow interpretation. The requirements in clause 85 are designed to place minimal administrative or resource demands on the police (for instance there is no general duty to ensure that admissions are made in circumstances that are unlikely to adversely affect the truth of the admission). However, it is simultaneously intended to ensure that the prosecution can demonstrate reliability in cases where the truth of an admission may be in doubt due to the circumstances in which it was made.