Matthews v The Queen

The appeal concerned the admission of evidence obtained from a search of the appellant's vehicle. The appellant argued that the vehicle was detained and searched without lawful authority. The initial search of the Jeep occurred on 3 January 2016, followed by a second search on 12 February 2016, which uncovered methylamphetamine and cash. The appellant was subsequently arrested when he attempted to retrieve the substituted items. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the police had a reasonable suspicion to justify the initial search and subsequent seizure of the vehicle.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Judge erred in finding that the police possessed a reasonable suspicion to authorise the initial search of the Jeep in the carpark, and whether the police had the authority to seize the vehicle and conduct a further search at a different location later that day. The appellant contended that the grounds for the police's suspicion were speculative and insufficient, particularly the mere proximity of his vehicle to another. The respondent argued that the combination of factual circumstances, as found by the trial judge, was sufficient to establish a reasonable suspicion that the Jeep contained a material substance or equipment.

The court considered the meaning of "detain and search" under relevant legislation, drawing on precedent that a detention can occur even if a person is unaware of it, and that the power to detain is for the purpose of conducting a search. While acknowledging the appellant's submission that close proximity alone might not suffice for a reasonable suspicion, the court found that the combination of factors, as accepted by the trial judge, rendered the suspicion reasonable. The court also noted that the cogency of the evidence, the seriousness of the offences, and the strong public interest in prosecuting such offences weighed in favour of admitting the evidence. The court concluded that even if the search had been unlawful, the misexercise of power in this instance would not warrant the exclusion of the evidence, as there was no indication of a deliberate abuse of power or a misunderstanding of the proper bounds of police authority.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed.