Bowers v The Queen - [2015] QDC 276

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bowers v R [2015] QDC 276

PARTIES:

RONALD SYDNEY CHARLES BOWERS

(applicant)

v

R

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

29 October 2015

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the applicant was detained by police for a search after exhibiting suspicious behaviour – where police located methylamphetamine in the applicant’s underwear – where the applicant was questioned at the road-side and watch-house – where the police were not aware of the applicant’s Aboriginality – where the applicant told police that he had consumed “meth” before the police arrived – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded on the basis that he was intoxicated at the time – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded because s 420 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 regarding questioning of Aboriginal people was not complied with – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded as it would be unfair to the applicant to admit it.

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 420, s 423

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130

COUNSEL:

S Neaves for the applicant.

M Le Grand for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Legal Service, Ipswich for the applicant.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ipswich for the respondent.

Facts

[1] The applicant has been charged that on or about 15 January 2015 at Redbank or elsewhere in the state of Queensland, he unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug methylamphetamine to another person. The prosecution relies on the extended definition of the term “supply”, namely that the applicant had done acts preparatory to the supply of the drug to another person.

[2] At about 12.15am on 16 January 2015 the applicant was located by police in the front passenger seat of a stationary vehicle, parked at McAuliffe Street, Redbank. Due to his suspicious behaviour, the applicant was detained by police for the purpose of a search, and items were found in the vehicle, and a clip seal plastic bag in the applicant’s underwear.

[3] The bag found in the applicant’s underwear contained methylamphetmine and another bag containing a pink crystal like substance, empty clip seal bags, a glass pipe and a set of digital scales were found in the vehicle.

[4] Police from the Ipswich Tactical Crime Squad were asked to attend and Sergeant Patch, from that squad, arrived and had a conversation with the applicant. The conversation was digitally recorded. The applicant told Sergeant Patch that he had obtained the methylamphetmine shortly prior to being searched, that he had not yet paid for it and that he intended to sell it.

[5] The applicant was taken to the Ipswich watch-house where he was taken…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bowers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bowers v The Queen [2015] QDC 276
Case: [2015] QDC 276
Decision Date: 5 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bowers v The Queen involved the applicant, who was detained by police and subsequently found with methylamphetamine in his possession. The primary issue before the court was whether the recordings of interviews conducted with the applicant by the police should be excluded from evidence. The applicant argued that the interviews should be excluded because he was intoxicated at the time, because the police did not comply with section 420 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, which pertains to the questioning of Aboriginal individuals, and because admitting the recordings would be unfair.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the applicant's detention and the interviews. It noted that the applicant's intoxication did not render the interviews inadmissible, as the applicant was coherent and able to respond to questions. The court also found that there was no requirement for the police to be aware of the applicant's Aboriginality prior to questioning, and therefore, section 420 was not breached. Finally, the court held that admitting the recordings was not unfair to the applicant, as they were relevant and probative of the case.

In conclusion, the court refused the application to exclude the recordings of the police interviews from evidence. The court determined that the interviews were conducted appropriately, and their admission did not prejudice the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Bowers v R [2015] QDC 276
PARTIES:	RONALD SYDNEY CHARLES BOWERS (applicant) v R (respondent)
FILE NO/S:
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2015
JUDGE:	Bradley DCJ
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the applicant was detained by police for a search after exhibiting suspicious behaviour – where police located methylamphetamine in the applicant’s underwear – where the applicant was questioned at the road-side and watch-house – where the police were not aware of the applicant’s Aboriginality – where the applicant told police that he had consumed “meth” before the police arrived – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded on the basis that he was intoxicated at the time – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded because s 420 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 regarding questioning of Aboriginal people was not complied with – whether the recording of each interview with police should be excluded as it would be unfair to the applicant to admit it. Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 420, s 423 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130
COUNSEL:	S Neaves for the applicant. M Le Grand for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Legal Service, Ipswich for the applicant. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ipswich for the respondent.