He Claimed Police Broke Him, The Video Told A Different Story
A High Court judge has ruled that statements made by murder accused Bevan Alford to police, including a video-recorded interview and messages found on his phone, can be used against him when his trial begins, rejecting defence claims that the admissions were obtained through improper police conduct.
Justice Nigel Pilgrim delivered the ruling, following weeks of hearings in which Alford’s legal team argued that the statements should be thrown out because police made improper promises to induce him to talk, questioned him while he was intoxicated and hungry, and failed to account for his history of mental illness.
The judge rejected every one of those arguments.
Alford is charged with the murder of Freddy Chicas, who was killed on 5th March 2023. He has pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution intends to rely on two sets of admissions. The first is a written and video-recorded interview in which Alford allegedly told investigating officer Corporal Alphonso Chuc that he had confessed to other people that he killed Chicas, though he maintained during the interview that he did not actually commit the killing and only moved the body. The second is a set of electronic messages retrieved from Alford’s phone, in which he allegedly admitted to the killing directly.
Before the main trial could proceed, the court was required to hold a voir dire because Alford challenged their admissibility on multiple grounds.
Alford testified under oath that before the interview began, Corporal Chuc came to his workplace and told him: “If you tell me everything, I will let you go.” He said he was also told by another officer, identified only as “Dennis” from the gang intelligence unit, that if he cooperated he would be released. He further claimed he had been using cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana the night before, arrived at the police station unwell, and was denied food and water during questioning. He also pointed to a history of mental illness involving substance-induced psychosis, previous suicide attempts, and self-harm.
The judge was not persuaded. Central to Justice Pilgrim’s ruling was the video recording of the interview itself, which he described as showing the investigator paying “scrupulous regard to the defendant’s rights” with no sign of coercion.
The footage showed Alford leaning back in his chair with his hands clasped behind his head, as if, in the judge’s words, “in casual conversation.” He shared a laugh with the investigator. He refused to give his mother’s name when asked, demonstrating, the judge found, that he understood he could decline to answer. He caught and corrected an error about his age in the notes. He nodded when cautioned, signaling he understood the warning that what he said could be used against him.
“The body language between the defendant and the investigator demonstrated no fear,” Justice Pilgrim wrote. “The strength of the evidence in CA1, by itself, would cause the Court to reject the defendant’s evidence on this issue.”
The claim about “Dennis” was dismissed entirely. Evidence from a senior officer confirmed there was no one by that name in the gang intelligence unit. The judge also found Alford had given inconsistent accounts of where this encounter took place, and when confronted with the inconsistency, “maintained that there was no inconsistency”, which the judge found untruthful.
On the question of intoxication and hunger, the judge noted that Alford had ridden a bicycle for an hour and a half to get to work that morning, and his supervisor had permitted him to work, both inconsistent with being incapacitated. The investigator’s evidence, supported by the video, was that a welfare check was conducted before the interview began, Alford said he was fine, and when he later asked for a break, food and water were provided.
Perhaps the most legally significant aspect of the ruling involved Alford’s mental health history. A clinical psychologist, Krystal Humes, confirmed that Alford has a documented history of mental and behavioural disorder due to psychoactive substance use.
Under the Commissioner of Police Rules, if a person appears to be suffering from a mental illness, officers are required to bring in an “appropriate adult”, a family member, mental health professional, or someone experienced in dealing with mental illness, before conducting an interview. No such adult was present during Alford’s questioning.
However, Justice Pilgrim found the critical question was not whether Alford had a mental health history, but whether he appeared mentally ill to the officers at the time. The judge accepted the investigator’s evidence that there were no observable signs of abnormality.
Facebook Comments