Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Mathews-Hunter

DPP v Mathews-Hunter

Case [2014] NSWSC 843 27 June 2014

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Common Law

Discretion to Exclude Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Mathews-Hunter [2014] NSWSC 843
Hearing dates: 21/05/2014
Decision date: 27 June 2014
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
The summons is dismissed.

Catchwords: APPEAL - appeal from the Local Court - discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence - common law restrictions on the power to arrest - whether citizens arrest by a transit officer improper or in contravention of an Australian law - adequacy of magistrate's reasons - ex tempore reasons
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 8(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(1), 61
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), ss 56(1)(c), 59(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 173
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 138
Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW), ss 4(1), 5(1)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), ss 99, 100
Rail Safety Act 2008 (NSW)
Rail Safety (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012 (NSW), s 14
Rail Safety (Adoption of National Law) Regulation 2012 (NSW)
Rail Safety National Law (NSW)
Cases Cited: Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472
DPP v AM [2006] NSWSC 348; 161 A Crim R 219
DPP v CAD & Ors [2003] NSWSC 196
DPP v Carr [2002] NSWSC 194; 127 A Crim R 151
DPP v Sadler [2013] NSWSC 718
DPP v Tamcelik [2012] NSWSC 1008
DPP (NSW) v AM [2006] NSWSC 348
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Illawarra Cashmart Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 343
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738
Robinson v Woolworths [2005] NSWCCA 426; 64 NSWLR 612
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Williams v R [1986] HCA 88; 161 CLR 278
Zaravinos v State of NSW [2004] NSWCA 320; 62 NSWLR 58
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Plaintiff)
Sean Nicholas Mathews-Hunter (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A Mitchelmore (Plaintiff)
R Burgess (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/310374
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9109

Date of Decision:

2013-07-10 00:00:00

Before:

Day LCM

Judgment

Introduction

HER HONOUR: On 8 February 2013 the defendant was arrested by a transit officer employed by RailCorp on a southbound train between Gosford and Woy Woy after being seen drawing on the internal window with a "Stealth Ink" marker.

The transit officer incorrectly believed that he was employed under the Rail Safety Act 2008 (NSW). That Act was repealed by s 14 of the Rail Safety (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012 (NSW) with effect from 20 January 2013. At the time of the arrest the transit officer's employment under RailCorp was governed by the Rail SafetyNational Law (NSW) and the Rail Safety (Adoption of National Law) Regulation 2012 (NSW), however nothing turns on this.

Following his arrest, and whilst being physically restrained by another transit officer at Woy Woy Railway Station pending the arrival of the police, the defendant was alleged…

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 DPP v Mathews-Hunter

Details

AGLC: DPP v Mathews-Hunter [2014] NSWSC 843
Case: [2014] NSWSC 843
Decision Date: 27 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Mathews-Hunter, the appellant sought to appeal a conviction and sentence imposed by the Local Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Mathews-Hunter, was convicted of contravening a penalty notice issued under the Roads Act 1993. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained during an arrest conducted by a transit officer and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate for admitting that evidence. The appeal was heard in the District Court of New South Wales, where the appellant argued that the evidence should have been excluded as it was obtained in an improper manner, in breach of Australian law.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the arrest conducted by the transit officer was improper or in contravention of Australian law, and if so, whether the evidence obtained during that arrest should have been excluded under common law principles. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the magistrate's reasons for admitting the evidence were sufficient and whether the reasons were adequately articulated in open court. The court was required to consider the common law discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence and assess the adequacy of the magistrate's reasons provided both in writing and verbally in court.

The court found that the transit officer's arrest of the appellant was not improper or in contravention of Australian law, as the officer had the necessary powers to effect a citizens arrest under the applicable legislation. Consequently, the evidence obtained during the arrest was admissible, and the court held that the magistrate's reasons for admitting the evidence were adequate both in written and verbal form. The court determined that the reasons provided by the magistrate were sufficient to demonstrate an understanding of the legal principles involved and a rational decision-making process. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence imposed by the Local Court were upheld. The court did not find any error in the magistrate's handling of the case, and no further action was required.

Orders