Can Evidence of Fleeing be Used Against You?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

If someone flees to avoid arrest or court over an alleged offence, should this be interpreted as an indication of their guilt?

Fleeing, hiding or failing to attend court does not always mean that a person is guilty – there are a number of other reasons why a person might flee if they think they are wanted by police or are due to appear in court.

They may be afraid of being arrested unjustly, or about someone making false accusations, or they may simply panic.

It is even possible for innocent people to experience feelings of guilt when they have not committed an offence.

And in some cases, a person fleeing or hiding from police may have committed another, unrelated offence and assume that police are investigating this, rather than the offence that they are actually suspected of.

Does fleeing amount to evidence of guilt?

When the prosecution is trying to prove guilt, they are allowed to look at a person’s behaviour after the alleged offence takes place.

This can be used to show what’s known as “consciousness of guilt” – which can be one of many factors used to implicate a person.

Evidence of consciousness of guilt can include fleeing an area or avoiding police after being suspected of an offence, or leaving the state or country when under an obligation to attend court. Although this evidence alone is not enough to convict someone, it can be used to sway a jury against a defendant.

Case study: fleeing the scene

In one NSW case, a man by the name of Ralph Quinlan was accused of armed robbery after allegedly fleeing the scene of the crime.

The robbery took place in the South West Rocks Country Club on the mid north coast of NSW. A while later, and not too far from the scene, police stopped a car being driven by Quinlan, which contained four passengers.

Quinlan pulled over after police followed the car and activated their lights and siren. Police then conducted various checks from inside the police car.

A constable then got out of the police car and approached Quinlan’s car. The officer shone a torch and noted the five occupants, then walked back to the police car to make a radio transmission.

After the officer did this, Quinlan got out of the car and walked towards the constable with his hands down the front of his pockets. The officer asked him to put his hands on the bonnet of the car “about four times”. Quinlan waved his hands in the air and the officer turned and kept walking to the police car.

As the officer turned away, Quinlan returned to the car and took off at a high speed. Police chased him for about five minutes before calling off the search.

Quinlan was later arrested and charged with the robbery.

At trial, Quinlan’s criminal lawyer argued that the evidence of him fleeing should not be admitted in court.

Was the evidence of fleeing admissible?

Under the Evidence Act, courts can refuse to admit improper, illegally obtained, unfairly prejudicial or otherwise unfair evidence before a jury.

Quinlan explained that, several years earlier, he had been at an Aboriginal gathering where police had opened fire indiscriminately.

He said that this event had instilled deep fear into him, and that he fled because he was afraid of being shot by police.

He further explained that when he was approached by police, the officer had called him “Ralph”, indicating familiarity with him.

Quinlan said that he had previously been shot at and set up by police, and this was why he drove away, not because he was guilty of the robbery.

Despite the explanation, the trial judge allowed the evidence to be used in front of the jury – and on appeal, the Court of Criminal appeal agreed that it was permissible.

There is no general principle that evidence of flight should be excluded because an accused person’s explanation might reveal other offences. But there are instances where a person’s explanation may be considered so prejudicial that evidence surrounding the flight will not be admitted, especially if they necessarily reveal prior serious offending.

However, this was not the case for Quinlan, who was ultimately convicted of the robbery and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.

If you have been accused of an offence and the prosecution are intending to allege that fleeing, escaping, or hiding is proof of your guilt, speak to a criminal lawyer immediately in order to give yourself the best chance of having the evidence excluded.

Author Image

About Ugur Nedim

Ugur Nedim is an Accredited Specialist Criminal Lawyer and Principal at Sydney Criminal Lawyers®, Sydney’s Leading Firm of Criminal & Traffic Defence Lawyers.

Leave a Comment




*