R v Sinfield[2019] QSCPR 3

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   An application was brought under s 590AA of the Code by Frederick Ronald Sinfield (the accused) for orders severing counts on an indictment presented against him and for orders excluding evidence to be led at his trial, being recordings of various conversations with investigating police.
2. [2]
   The application was heard in Maryborough. Full argument was advanced in the application to exclude the evidence of the interviews. However, during argument on the severance application it became apparent that it was not clear exactly what evidence the Crown intended to lead at the trial, or for what purpose. Those issues have a bearing on whether count 4 on the indictment should be tried separately from counts 1, 2 and 3. The parties were clearly not in a position then to fully argue the severance application.
3. [3]
   I made orders excluding the evidence of the various interviews between the accused and police, adjourned the severance application, and made directions to advance both that application, and trial preparation. These are my reasons for excluding the interviews. There is no need to record the other orders in these reasons.

The indictment

4. [4]
   An indictment has been presented charging the accused as follows:
5. [5]
   That on a date unknown between the first day of February 2015 and the first day of May 2015 at Cooloola Cove in the State of Queensland, Frederick Ronald Sinfield without Complainant 1’s consent, visually recorded Complainant 1, in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy and Complainant 1 was engaging in a private act and the visual recording was made for the purpose of visually recording a private act.
6. [6]
   That on or about the second day of July 2015 at Eli Waters in the State of Queensland, Frederick Ronald Sinfield raped [Complainant 2].
7. [7]
   That on or about the second day of July 2015 at Eli Waters in the State of Queensland, Frederick Ronald Sinfield without [Complainant 2]’s consent, visually recorded [Complainant 2], in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy and [Complainant 2] was in a private place and the visual recording was made for the purpose of visually recording a private act.
8. [8]
   That on the sixth day of July 2015^[1] at Hervey Bay in the State of Queensland, Frederick Ronald Sinfield murdered [Complainant 2].

Crown allegations

9. [9]
   Count 1 concerns the complaint of Complainant 1 (Complainant 1). She met the accused in about February 2015 through an internet dating service.
10. [10]
    Complainant 1 and the accused struck up a relationship and on one occasion Complainant 1 allowed the accused to massage her vagina with baby oil. During this episode Complainant 1 was lying face down on a bed. She noticed though that the accused had been electronically recording his actions. While Complainant 1 had consented to the vaginal massage, she had not consented to the recording. She protested this to the accused who, after some argument, desisted.
11. [11]
    Count 1 on the indictment alleges an offence against s 227A(1) of the Code which provides:

“227A Observations or recordings in breach of privacy

(1) A person who observes or visually records another person, in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy—

1. (a)
   without the other person’s consent; and

1. (b)
   when the other person—

1. (i)
   is in a private place; or
2. (ii)
   is engaging in a private act and the observation or visual recording is made for the purpose of observing or visually recording a private act;

commits a misdemeanour.

Maximum penalty—2 years imprisonment.

Examples of circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect to be afforded privacy—

1. A person changing in a communal change room at a swimming pool may expect to be observed by another person who is also changing in the room but may not expect to be visually recorded.
2. A person who needs help to dress or use a toilet may expect to be observed by the person giving the help but may not expect to be observed by another person.”

12. [12]
    Counts 2, 3 and 4 all concern [Complainant 2]. [Complainant 2] was an elderly lady living at [an address in Eli Waters] which is in close proximity to 12 Bushlark Avenue, Eli Waters where the accused lived with his elderly mother.
13. [13]
    [Complainant 2] was not in good health and required the assistance of carers. The accused, while not officially occupying the position of carer for the purposes of receiving Commonwealth benefits, visited [Complainant 2] regularly and assisted her with domestic tasks.
14. [14]
    After [Complainant 2]’s death (count 4) the police analysed the accused’s mobile telephone. They discovered the recording of the incident with Complainant 1 (count 1) and also discovered a recording of a person, who the Crown alleges is the accused, digitally penetrating the vagina of [Complainant 2] who appears to be unconscious throughout.
15. [15]
    Count 2 is founded on s 349 of the Code which is in these terms:

“349 Rape

1. (1)
   Any person who rapes another person is guilty of a crime.

Maximum penalty—life imprisonment.

2. (2)
   A person rapes another person if—

   1. (a)the person has carnal knowledge with or of the other person without the other person’s consent; or
   2. (b)the person penetrates the vulva, vagina or anus of the other person to any extent with a thing or a part of the person’s body that is not a penis without the other person’s consent; or
   3. (c)the person penetrates the mouth of the other person to any extent with the person’s penis without the other person’s consent.
3. (3)
   For this section, a child under the age of 12 years is incapable of giving consent.
4. (4)
   The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 161Q states a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.
5. (5)
   An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.”

16. [16]
    Unless there is some consent which can in some way be implied from an existing relationship, the penetration of a sleeping woman will constitute the offence of rape as an unconscious person cannot consent to the sexual act.^[2]
17. [17]
    Count 3 is founded upon s 227A(1) which is the same section which supports count 1.
18. [18]
    Count 4 (the murder of [Complainant 2]) is alleged to have been committed by an assault upon [Complainant 2] at her home at [an address in Eli Waters] on about 4 July 2015. She died on 6 July 2015 of head wounds inflicted, the Crown says, by the accused. Murder is an offence by force of a combination of ss 291, 293 and 302 of the Code. It is unnecessary to set those sections out here.

The application by the accused

19. [19]
    The four counts on the indictment can be seen to arise from three incidents. Count 1 is the filming of Complainant 1 and is a separate incident to counts 2 and 3 which together were committed on the same occasion against [Complainant 2]. That was a different occasion to count 4, the murder of [Complainant 2].
20. [20]
    The accused was the subject of various interviews and conversations with police: 15 were recorded and there were also some initial conversations which were not. These occurred at [Complainant 2]’s property at [an address in Eli Waters]. The Crown seeks to lead, at the accused’s trial, evidence of the initial conversations at the scene together with an interview conducted on 4 July 2015,^[3] a field interview and walk through of [Complainant 2]’s house on 9 July 2015^[4] and a formal interview on 29 July 2015.^[5]
21. [21]
    It is conceded that evidence of all these conversations is admissible in the sense that they were undertaken voluntarily by the accused, and are relevant to count 4 (at least). The accused seeks their exclusion on discretionary grounds being:

    1. (i)
       unfairness;^[6]
    2. (ii)
       impropriety; the Bunning v Cross discretion.^[7]

The accused’s dealings with police after [Complainant 2]’s death

22. [22]
    On 4 July 2015 the accused rang emergency 000 and reported that he had found [Complainant 2] injured in her home. That conversation was recorded.^[8] The person with whom the accused spoke is not a police officer. The Crown intends to lead that recording in the case against the accused and the accused does not suggest any basis to exclude that evidence.
23. [23]
    The accused told the 000 officer that he was at [Complainant 2]’s house at [an address in Eli Waters]. He said he found [Complainant 2] in the home with an injury to the top of her head. She was breathing and conscious but not alert. He reported that there was a lot of blood. He told the 000 officer that [Complainant 2] had recently had falls at home.
24. [24]
    After making the 000 call, the accused remained at [an address in Eli Waters] and was present when police arrived. He had conversations with Plain Clothes Senior Constable Wheeler. PCSC Wheeler in his statement^[9] said that he arrived at [Complainant 2]’s house and:

“7. As I parked the vehicle and before I had a chance to alight, I was approached by one of these civilians. I would describe this male as being approximately 60 years of age, approximately 170cm in height, proportionate build with grey hair and wearing a shirt and glasses. This civilian was Frederick Ronald SINFIELD, the defendant in this matter.

8. As I got out of the Police vehicle, SINFIELD immediately stated to me words similar to ‘My name is Rick. I am [Complainant 2]’s Carer.’ SINFIELD repeated this on numerous occasions and went on to state ‘I started knocking on her door since 9:00am this morning but the front door was closed which is odd for her because the front wooden door is usually open with the security door closed. I knocked on her front door again at 11:00am and again at 1:00pm and the front wooden and security doors were closed. At around 2:00pm I went around the back and peered through the bedroom window and saw [Complainant 2] lying on the floor between the wall and her bed, surrounded by clutter.
9. I took down SINFIELD’s personal details in my Official Police Diary and brief notes about this conversation. As SINFIELD lived close by, I advised him he could go home and I would speak with him soon.”^[10]

25. [25]
    Later PCSC Wheeler said:

“32. Whilst I was speaking BABB,^[11] I could see the front door of the house. The wooden door was open and the security door closed. I observed Frederick SINFIELD sitting next to the front door and it appeared as if he was attempting to listen to conversations inside.

33. I approached SINFIELD and had a conversation with him. (I advised SINFIELD he could go home and if I would contact him with any updates regarding [Complainant 2]. SINFIELD stated that he was concerned for [Complainant 2] because he was her carer.) SINFIELD shook my hand with his right hand and walked towards his house on Bushlark Avenue.”^[12]

26. [26]
    No challenge was made to the admission of evidence of these conversations with PCSC Wheeler.
27. [27]
    Detective Acting Sergeant Cameron was also at the house. She spoke to the accused and he agreed to accompany her to Hervey Bay police station. She drove him to the police station and there was conversation in the police car. That conversation was recorded.^[13] Initially, DAS Cameron introduced herself and then:

“SGT Cameron: And I believe that you’re a witness and you’ve rang up the ambulance.

Sinfield: Yep.

SGT Cameron: SGT Cameron: Alright, we’re just wondering if you’re able to come down the station, give us a statement about what happened--“

28. [28]
    After a short discussion where the accused expressed concerns about leaving his mother:

“SGT Cameron: If you come down and give us a statement?

Sinfield: Yeah.

SGT Cameron: Yeah no worries, alright. Well I’ll take you down in that car if you like.

Sinfield. Yep.

SGT Cameron: And we’ll bring you back.”

29. [29]
    During the drive to the police station, the accused and DAS Cameron conversed about various things including some things relevant to the investigation. The Crown though does not intend to lead the contents of the conversation at the accused’s trial.
30. [30]
    During the drive, DAS Cameron received a telephone call from another officer. She said this, presumably within the accused’s hearing:

“SGT Cameron: Good, good. I’ve just got um, we’ve just got a witness that’s gone over there and found her today and we’re bringing her back, bringing him back to the station. That’s Frederick Sinfield …” (emphasis added)

31. [31]
    Once the accused arrived at the police station, it was intended by police that he would be interviewed by two police officers, PCSC Wheeler (who had been at [an address in Eli Waters]) and Detective Senior Constable Dehnert. The two police officers entered the interview room with the accused and there was a conversation which occurred before the interview commenced (the conversation before the interview). It is not suggested that there is anything sinister in the police speaking to the accused before the commencement of the formal interview. The conversation before the interview was recorded.

32. [32]
    The conversation before the interview is not intended by the Crown to be led at the trial but is relied upon heavily by the accused in the current application and it is appropriate to set it out in full:

“CW^[14]Ok Now what we gotta do

33. [33]
    The interview then commenced. At the time of the interview police were unaware of the circumstances giving rise to counts 1-3. Their investigation then proceeded initially only into the assault of [Complainant 2], which ultimately lead to her death. During argument on the application I was referred to many passages in the interview. Some parts should be set out. The first exchanges, including the giving of the caution, are important:

You need to verbalise your answers. Do you understand that?

I understand

And what is your understanding of that?

If you say something and then it’s not true, it can be, it can be used against ya. So like UI what I’m doing about the police.

34. [34]
    What followed then was questioning by the police officers about relevant events and, quite frankly, a number of matters which seem barely, if at all, relevant.
35. [35]
    Then: “FS Ok. I’ve given my statement, a witness statement of what happened today

CW Yeah”^[19]

36. [36]
    Some time later:

38. [37]
    As the interview progressed the accused began to become concerned about his elderly mother left at home. This exchange occurred:

38. [38]
    Then a little later:

39. [39]
    What followed then was detailed questioning about the accused’s clothing. Various other topics were covered and then this exchange occurred:

GD Ok. And all of a sudden you’ve nominated this random guy ah being at the house there today. So it’s very important I believe that we know as much about this person as possible. Ok FS Alright. All I can tell you is he’s tall, six foot two. he’s big um wide. And he’s wide. And he’s wearing the work shirt type of thing. Greyish. He’s got a mo. Um and that’s about it. I can’t, the black car’s a sedan. I don’t take notice of anybody else’s cars. Um my memory’s starting to go too. I’m starting to get dementia like my mum sometimes. Um but um I, all I can think of is he is tall. Ah I haven’t seen him before. I believe [Complainant 2]’s talked about him. Um supposed to do shopping or something. I’m not too sure. I’ve seen different guys”^[23]

40. [40]
    The reference to the “random guy” was a reference to statements made earlier by the accused in the interview to the effect that there was a man in a black car who he had seen at [Complainant 2]’s house. Then later on:

41. [41]
    It can be seen that in this passage the police have asked the accused whether he assaulted the deceased. He denied that. Very shortly thereafter:

(DEHNERT leaves room)”^[25]

42. [42]
    It can be seen that DSC Dehnert indicates to the accused that he is arranging a lift home for him. That was not true. DSC Dehnert was in fact speaking to his superiors with a view to deciding whether or not to arrest the accused. When DSC Dehnert leaves, PCSC Wheeler continued to speak to the accused.
43. [43]
    The accused then raised with PCSC Wheeler that he wished to go home:

44. [44]
    Before DSC Dehnert’s return to the interview room, this exchange occurred between the accused and PCSC Wheeler:

45. [45]
    As I will later explain, PCSC Wheeler had been told by a superior to treat the accused as a suspect. It must have been obvious to PCSC Wheeler from the conversation before the interview, and the initial exchanges during the interview, that the accused believed he was assisting police as a potential witness and did not think police regarded him as a suspect. PCSC Wheeler actively encouraged the accused to hold a view that he (the accused) was a witness, not a suspect. In that context, to engage in some debate with the accused as to whether police had actually levelled an accusation against him was both pointless and disingenuous.
46. [46]
    Still while only PCSC Wheeler is in the interview room with the accused:

CW We’re making arrangements to get you home right now ok FS Yeah ok. Look I’m trying to help you out. But when someone says one hour and it’s ended up gunna be two hours, three hours, four hours. And then I feel like what’s going on here. You’re accusing me for something I didn’t do

48. [48]
    Despite the fact that the accused had been cautioned,^[30] there seems to be some dispute as to whether he was a “suspect”. Apparently before the interview was commenced, there had been communications between the interviewing police officers and one of their superiors. The upshot of all that was that while the interviewing officers assert that they had not formed the view that the accused was a suspect, he was, by direction from above, to be treated as a suspect. This exchange occurred at the committal proceedings during the evidence of PCSC Wheeler:

“By that stage you’d already decided he was a suspect?---Not me personally, but it - - -

It had been - - - ?---It had been- - -

You’d been told he was a suspect?---Yes.

He was going to be treated as a suspect. He was going to be cautioned and warned as a suspect?---Yes.

Yes. Not a person of interest, a suspect, yes?---A suspect, yes.

So when you say in your statement at paragraph 43 that he was a person of interest and not a suspect that is inaccurate?---Forty-three [indistinct] It was decided that Sinfield was a suspect as opposed to a person of interest.

As a result of this conversation it was decided that Sinfield was not a suspect in this matter as opposed to a person of interest?---No, that’s a - that’s a typo.

That’s a typo. All right. So what you should say is he was a suspect - - - ? ---Correct.

- - - in this matter as opposed to a person of interest?---Correct.

He was a suspect as opposed to a person of interest. All right. So then you thought he was a suspect when you said to him this. This is in your recording with him prior to the interview. And this is you speaking. It starts off by saying it’s an interview transcript prepared by the police?---Yes.”^[31]

49. [49]
    What followed at the committal was cross-examination of PCSC Wheeler on the contents of the conversation before the interview.
50. [50]
    And then later at the committal:

“Thank you. But, you knew, he was, in fact, a suspect?---The he was to be treated as a suspect, but, I, myself, hadn’t formed that opinion.

But the police officer who was going to conduct the interview, and was right next to you, had formed that view?---I don’t know what opinion he had formed.

Well, didn’t - well, who was it who formed the opinion he was a suspect?--I believe it was the OIC.

Your senior officer?---Senior officer.

Senior to both of you, told you he’s a suspect. Is that right?---Again, I don’t - I was not present for all of the conversation.

No. No. But, you have told us you were present - - -?---But that was - that was the point that I walked away from the conversation with - - -

You told us you were present for the conversation where it was decided he was a suspect?---Yes. Yes.

Were you told by your senior officer, that he was a suspect?---Yes. And, yet, you tried to convey to him that he wasn’t a suspect, he was a witness?---I was trying to treat him as a witness, because, at that stage, because, I, myself, hadn’t formed that opinion that he was a suspect.

My goodness. Your senior officer had decided he was a suspect and you decided to treat him differently.”^[32]

51. [51]
    When the interview was completed police took the accused (now in custody) to the watch house. Conversation between the accused and the police continued and was recorded.
52. [52]
    Of course by the time these further conversations occurred, the accused could have been in no doubt that he was suspected by police of assaulting [Complainant 2].
53. [53]
    The opening exchange in this part of the conversation with police is as follows:

51. [54]
    For various reasons the accused was taken to the watch house and then brought back into the interview room and the conversation continued, relevantly:

51. [55]
    A little later:

56. [56]
    And then:

57. [57]
    The discussion turned to various topics concerning a lady referred to by the accused as Cindy and other persons associated with the deceased. Then:

58. [58]
    The discussion continued. There were many questions about the accused’s movements and at one stage a type of re-enactment of the accused’s discovery of the deceased was initiated.^[38] On numerous occasions during the second part of the interview the accused is invited to speak to the police and he does so.
59. [59]
    The police took steps to ensure that the accused realised that he need not speak to them. This exchange occurred:

60. [60]
    The police then advised the accused that they intended to conduct a “non-intimate forensic examination” which involved seizing his clothing.^[40]
61. [61]
    The police then invited further discussion:

I’ll tell you what I will never help the police again. If I see something I’ll just turn my eyes. Never help the police. UI refuse to help any of yous. Because you’re accusing me for something I didn’t do. That’s pathetic. Lie to me from the start and yous have lied to me.

I supposed to be a witness UI. Now UI saying you’re under arrest. I believe you did it. You did it today. Come on, wake up to yourselves. You’re gunna be more in strife when I get through with yous. You want to charge, you charge I love it. Go for it

62. [62]
    Of course parts of this exchange are of a nature of cross-examination. By the question

“Well who’s to say there even is a guy”, DSC Dehnert is suggesting (not too subtly) that the accused has some knowledge of the cause of [Complainant 2]’s injuries; by assault. Of course the police had by that stage put to the accused that they held the belief that she had been assaulted.

63. [63]
    Notwithstanding that the accused makes it quite clear that he doesn’t want to speak, the police keep asking him questions, in some cases about innocent non-contentious matters before then returning to the subject of the investigation:

SILENCE for 70 seconds

64. [64]
    Also of note in this passage is that the accused squarely asserts that he was deceived into believing he was a witness not a suspect. He had made similar statements earlier. Neither of the police challenged him on the correctness of those assertions.
65. [65]
    A search warrant was obtained from a magistrate to search the accused’s house. That search warrant was executed in the presence of the accused and the proceedings were recorded. That occurred on 5 July 2015. There was a visit to the accused’s house on 7 July and on 9 July there was a discussion with him arranging a walk through of the crime scene. All this was recorded but the Crown do not seek to lead those recordings in evidence in the trial.
66. [66]
    On 9 July 2015 the accused consented to participate in the walk through procedure and on the same day he did so. He explained various things to the police during this procedure and answered numerous questions. The Crown seeks to lead that recording.
67. [67]
    The accused was released from custody. He was then arrested and participated in an interview with police on 29 July 2015. That was recorded and the Crown seeks to lead it. At the conclusion of that interview he was arrested again and charged. There was yet a further interview (although very short) at the prison on 31 August 2015 which the Crown does not seek to lead.

The cases for exclusion or admission of the interviews

68. [68]
    Statements made by an accused to police are prima facie hearsay but a statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule where it is voluntarily made. By s 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894, a confession is not voluntary if induced by threat or promise. However, even if not vitiated by a threat or promise, a statement may not be voluntary as a result of other circumstances, sometimes called “basal involuntariness”.^[43]
69. [69]
    For s 10 to be engaged, a statement against interest must be a “confession”.^[44] The accused here has not made any confession. Indeed, the statements are all intended by him to be exculpatory. During the discussions with police, he clearly and repeatedly asserts his innocence. That does not mean, of course, that the statements are irrelevant to the Crown case. Mr Whitbread for the Crown seeks to rely on the statements as lies constituting post-offence conduct amounting to an admission of a consciousness of guilt.^[45] Mr Whitbread submits that apart from the lies contained in the various interviews, the accused makes statements describing things he has done which the Crown seeks to rely upon as post-offence conduct.^[46] In addition, I am sure that the Crown will rely on some of the statements as being true and showing the relationship between the accused and [Complainant 2] and that will go to such things as opportunity and perhaps even motive.
70. [70]
    Mr Benjamin for the accused does not submit that the statements were made other than voluntarily. He concedes therefore that the evidence of the making of the statements is admissible. Those concessions are clearly properly made. Mr Benjamin seeks to have the statements excluded in exercise of discretion.
71. [71]
    There is of course no doubt that there are discretionary bases upon which evidence may be excluded in a criminal case. Different considerations arise for the exclusion of the evidence of statements made by an accused than arise for the exclusion of other evidence.^[47] Here, Mr Benjamin relies on two recognised bases of discretionary exclusion, as previously outlined:

    3. (iii)
       unfairness;
    4. (iv)
       impropriety of the police.
72. [72]
    Unfairness is a basis to exclude statements by an accused when it is unfair to the accused to admit the statements.^[48] What is critical is not whether the police have acted unfairly, but whether it is unfair to the accused for the Crown to lead the evidence in the accused’s trial.^[49] Often of course the relevant unfairness will arise because of the actions of the police; perhaps acting unfairly.
73. [73]
    Often, the admission into evidence of statements made by an accused will be unfair because the circumstances in which the statements were obtained by police cast doubt upon the reliability of the statements made. Reliability though is not the only characteristic which may lead to exclusion on the basis of unfairness to the accused. It is well recognised that if through circumstances the rights of an accused have been compromised and the compromise of those rights has led to the accused speaking to police in circumstances where he would otherwise have remained silent, then it may be judged to be unfair to admit the statements in evidence against the accused.^[50]
74. [74]
    This is the primary submission made by Mr Benjamin. The accused did not give evidence before me on this application. There is therefore no direct evidence as to the accused’s state of mind whilst being interviewed and no direct evidence from him that, but for the conduct of police he would not have participated in the conversations. Mr Benjamin though submits that having regard to the recorded conversations, I ought to infer that to be the case.
75. [75]
    Mr Benjamin submits that I should conclude that notwithstanding that police administered the statutorily required caution, their conduct led the accused to understand that he was participating in the conversations with the police not as a person suspected of committing the crime, but only as a person assisting the police with their inquiries: as a witness.
76. [76]
    As already observed, there comes a point during the accused’s dealing with police where he becomes aware that he is a suspect. He makes many statements thereafter and indeed participates in a further formal interview on 29 July 2015.
77. [77]
    Mr Benjamin does not submit that any of those later statements were made other than voluntarily. He accepts that appropriate warnings were given and he accepts that if those statements stood alone, there would be no basis upon which their admission into evidence could be challenged. He submits though that the circumstances of the making of those later statements cannot be divorced from the circumstances of the interview conducted on 4 July. He submits that the accused only participated in that interview on a particular understanding which was mistaken but then having given his version was effectively “locked in” and that then led him to talk to police on later occasions attempting to maintain his position. In that sense, Mr Benjamin submits that the interview of 4 July adulterates all the accused’s subsequent dealings with police so it is unfair to lead any of the conversations against him.

78. [78]
    Mr Benjamin submits in the alternative that the evidence ought to be excluded due to impropriety being a breach by the police of s 431 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (the PPRA). That section provides:

    “431Cautioning of persons

    1. (1)
       A police officer must, before a relevant person is questioned, caution the person in the way required under the responsibilities code.^[51]
    2. (2)
       The caution must be given in, or translated into, a language in which the person is able to communicate with reasonable fluency, but need not be given in writing unless the person can not hear adequately.
    3. (3)
       If the police officer reasonably suspects the person does not understand the caution, the officer may ask the person to explain the meaning of the caution in his or her own words.
    4. (4)
       If necessary, the police officer must further explain the caution.
    5. (5)
       This section does not apply if another Act requires the person to answer questions put by, or do things required by, the police officer.”