28 The judge's grounds of judgment were expressed thus in the Stated Case:
(i) In my reasons for judgment I noted that as the Appellant had stated that there was no conversation between himself and Detective Fitzgerald there was consequently no question of importuning, pressure or the like.
(ii) I found the fact that the Appellant said at the outset that he wanted to speak to a solicitor first is not conclusive of the right of the police to ask questions. If the Appellant is willing to answer questions then unless there is some impropriety or other, I cannot see why the evidence of the conversation is not admissible.
(iii) I found that there was no requirement for a caution in relation to the goods in custody charge until Detective Fitzgerald had reasonable cause to suspect and did suspect that the Appellant was guilty of this offence. I further found that at the time of the conversation, that situation had not arisen.
(iv) I found that Detective Fitzgerald was not required pursuant to Section 424A of the Crimes Act to conduct the interview by way of ERISP facility. I further found that even if the ERISP facility should have been used for the purpose of the interrogation, there was reasonable cause in this case for that procedure not to be followed.
(v) I found that the evidence of the conversation was not improperly obtained because it was not in an official notebook, nor because an independent officer was not called in.
(vi) I found that there was no impropriety nor unfairness in the procedure adopted.
29 The judge annexed a copy of his reasons for judgment to the Stated Case. In these reasons the judge said, amongst other things:
"The appellant said there was no interview at all, so questions of importuning, pressure and so forth do not come into it. It comes down to whether the conversation is admissible otherwise"
and
"As to the appellant not being cautioned about the charge, clearly the requirement of a caution did not arise until the detective had reasonable cause to suspect and did suspect that the appellant was guilty of this offence. As I recall his evidence Detective Fitzgerald said at the time he asked these questions, or at the time of the conversation, that situation had not arisen. I accept Detective Fitzgerald when he says that when he got to the documents in the wallet and said "How come you've got these in your wallet?" - I think that was the general thrust of what the question was - it was a genuine inquiry to see if the appellant had a reason for possessing the documents.
I do not accept the interview should have been done on the ERISP as required under the Crimes Act. This was a summary offence. But even if one follows the argument of Mr Goldberg that the original questioning was not dealing with the question of these documents, but the movements of the appellant earlier in the day and therefore might be said to come under the cloak of the requirement for the ERISP facility to be used where the indictable offence was being the subject of interrogation, I accept that there was reasonable cause in this case in any event for that procedure not to be followed.
I accept that the earlier conversation was in regard to the movements of the accused in and about the motel. That may well be relevant to the harbouring charge, but I am not dealing with that charge. To my mind it is relevant to the goods in custody charge."