Question

Rick was the owner of the Rave-On nightclub. Police had received a tip-off from an informant that Rick used the nightclub for drug trafficking and money laundering.

At 6:00pm on 14 October 2019, Police raided the nightclub and seized computers and documents relating to Rick's business dealings. No drugs were found in the search. Rick and his girlfriend Elsa were in the club at the time of the raid. They were taken to a police station and questioned about the allegations. They denied everything.

Elsa was interviewed separately by Officer Sharp, starting at 10.00pm. Elsa denied knowing anything about Rick's business dealings and requested a lawyer. Officer Sharp left the room at 11.30pm promising to contact a lawyer. Elsa was locked in the interview room until 1:00am on 15 October 2019. Officer Sharp returned (with no lawyer) and began shouting at her, saying "We've got you! Your husband rolled and told us you organise the drug operations while he launders the money!" (which was untrue). "Tell us where the stash is hidden and we will go easy on you, otherwise you are going to be going away for a long time!" Elsa had had nothing to eat or drink for many hours and had not been allowed to use the toilet.

Elsa broke down and insisted she was innocent. She told police to check a hut constructed in a nearby forest because 'Rick spends a lot of time out there'. At around 8:00am on 15 October 2019, Police found a large quantity of amphetamines in the hut Elsa had indicated.

(1) Rick has been charged with money laundering based on evidence obtained from the computers and documents seized in the search of the club. Discuss the arguments for and againstadmitting the evidence at trial?

(2) Rick has also been charged with supply of drugs. Assume that when Elsa told the police about the hut, she was unlawfully detained, she had been denied her right to see a lawyer, and she was being questioned improperly. Discuss the arguments for and against admitting the evidence of the amphetamines at Rick's trial?