Burglary — admissibility of evidence — DVD interview — whether police failed to explain rights — Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989, s 215 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30. The admissibility of the DVD interview with the young person was challenged based on the way that the young person articulated their understanding of several of their rights. The court found that the young person's inability to explain their right to silence, and their right to speak to a lawyer, meant that the young person did not understand those rights. The court found that the interview was not conducted at an age-appropriate time, and that the answers that the young person gave in relation to explaining what their rights were, lacked specificity and suggested a lack of understanding. The court further found that the interview was inadmissible and that the breach was sufficiently serious as to exclude the evidence. In respect of the burglary charge, the court considered that the young person's explanation that they had been threatened into entering the building was not credible, in particular because it had never been mentioned to the police. The court accepted that the young person was a reluctant participant in the offending, but that they had still taken part. The young person was found guilty of the charge. Judgment Date: 12 December 2016. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *