Michaelis v Police - [1999] SASC 102

MICHAELIS V POLICE
[1999] SASC 102

Magistrate’s Appeal

MARTIN J. (Ex tempore) The applicant was found guilty on 13 November 1998 of a charge of unlawful possession. The notice of appeal listed four grounds, but only two were argued. The remaining two were abandoned.
The grounds argued are that the magistrate erred in admitting into evidence conversations between the applicant and a police officer and in finding that there was a case to answer.
Although an extension of time is sought within which to appeal from a conviction, the matter proceeded before me on the merits.
On 8 December 1997, Detective McManus, and six other police officers, attended at the applicant's premises at Norwood. They were pursuing enquiries with respect to information that the applicant had received a number of laptop computers and video projectors. The applicant operated a fitness business on the premises in which he lived. The two areas were separated. He also conducted a catering business and a security staff organisation from those premises. A number of persons beside the applicant were there when the police arrived.
Objection was taken to the admission of conversations at the premises between McManus and the defendant. A record of the conversations was typed up for prosecution purposes. It also contained some narrative facts. The transcript shows the record was admitted for the purposes of having the magistrate rule on the admission of the conversations in issue.
McManus gave evidence that, upon arrival, he introduced himself to the applicant, and asked him whether he was Mathew Michaelis. The applicant responded that he was and McManus then told him the police had information that he was in possession of stolen video projectors and laptop computers. McManus said he had a warrant to search the premises and produced a general search warrant. The applicant appeared to read the warrant and remarked that the warrant was not specific and did not relate to a specific address. McManus said he told the applicant that the general search warrant allowed him to search any premises where he suspected stolen property to be located, as a result of which the applicant went to another office of the premises, apparently in an attempt to contact a solicitor. It seems this was not successful.
McManus then told the applicant he was sure that his solicitor would have told him that the warrant entitled the police to search the premises and they intended to do so. McManus said the applicant accepted what McManus had told him and then he said, that is McManus, “We only want to cause you a minimum disruption to your business, Matthew, so can you show me any laptops that you might have here”. The applicant pointed out a laptop on the desk near a doorway into the central passage of the premises. McManus then asked about video projectors and claimed that when asked whether he had any of those, the applicant replied “No”.
The applicant admitted living on the premises and agreed to McManus' request…

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 Michaelis v Police

Details

AGLC: Michaelis v Police [1999] SASC 102
Case: [1999] SASC 102
Decision Date: 11 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Michaelis sought an appeal against his conviction for unlawful possession of stolen property. The appeal hinged on two grounds: the admission of conversations between the applicant and a police officer, and the magistrate's finding that there was a case to answer. The court had to determine whether the police officer's failure to immediately caution the applicant amounted to an error that rendered the conversations inadmissible, and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a case to answer.

The court held that the police officer's failure to immediately caution the applicant did not render the conversations inadmissible. The court found that the investigation was in its early stages, and the police officer was gathering information rather than interrogating the applicant as a suspect. The court also rejected the argument that the conversations were involuntary, finding that the police officer's comments were merely polite and not an inducement to answer questions. Additionally, the court found that the failure to provide the applicant with a copy of the police officer's notes did not warrant the exclusion of the evidence. The court further held that the magistrate correctly found that there was a case to answer, as the evidence established that the applicant lived and worked at the premises where the stolen property was found, and the applicant had falsely denied possession of the stolen property.

The appeal was dismissed, and the application for an extension of time to appeal from the conviction was refused.

Orders