NSW Police v Manwarring

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Manwarring [2022] NSWLC 24
Hearing dates: 18 November 2021
19 November 2021
25 February 2022
Date of orders: 26 April 2022
Decision date: 26 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Magistrate M O’Brien
Decision:

Evidence obtained during execution of search warrant excluded

Catchwords:

Cultivate cannabis – search warrant – evidence obtained as a consequence of impropriety or contravention of Australian Law - exclusion of evidence

Legislation Cited:

Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Crimes Act 1900

Evidence Act 1995

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Cases Cited:

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104

R v Ho (1989) 39 A Crim R 145

Cornwell v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 59

Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Natale [2018] VSC 339

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: NSW Police (Prosecution)
Phillip Manwarring (Defendant)
Representation: Sergeant Comer (for the Prosecution)
Mr John Stratton SC with Kathleen Heath instructed by Armstrong Felton Solicitors (for the Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/00101575
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. On 1 April 2020 two unmarked police vehicles made their way to a rural property situated on Moss Vale Road at Beaumont, nestled in the Kangaroo Valley being part of Cambewarra Range. Upon arrival, Police met the accused, Phillip Manwarring, who was not expecting their visit, telling him they were making inquiries about an illegal building structure erected on the property and the manufacture of illicit drugs taking place there based on information they had received. The accused inquired if police had a warrant. No, he was told. He asked them to leave. They did.

  2. Later that day a search warrant was issued from the Registrar of Nowra Local Court at the request of one of the police officers present at the accused property earlier that day, Senior Constable Corbridge, to search the accused’s property, seeking documents which it was claimed would support evidence of fraud.

  3. PolAir flew a fixed wing aircraft over his property, twice, once, on 11 February 2020 at the request of Sergeant Watson, and another during the night of 1 April 2020 at the request of Corbridge. Police returned the next day, 2 April 2020, armed with a search warrant, issued by the Registrar of Nowra Local Court, to search for documents connected with unapproved building work as evidence of a fraud. Some landscape drawings were found and seized. During a walk-through of the dwelling, police found a dried cannabis leaf in a room underneath the house adjacent to a rumpus room.

  4. The accused consented to a further search on the basis that if he withheld his consent, a crime scene warrant would be obtained in a matter of hours. More police were summoned. Pots of cannabis were found in more remote locations within the curtilage of the property and beyond.

  5. The accused, has since been charged with cultivate cannabis contrary to the provisions of section 23(1)(A) of the Drugs…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police v Manwarring and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWLC 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of New South Wales Police versus Manwarring involved a dispute over the admissibility of evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant. The defendant, Manwarring, was charged with cultivating cannabis. The evidence against him was obtained following a search of his premises. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the search of Manwarring's property should be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). This section allows for the exclusion of evidence obtained as a consequence of impropriety or contravention of Australian law. The court had to determine whether any such impropriety or contravention occurred during the execution of the search warrant, and if so, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded.

The court considered whether the police acted within the bounds of the law when executing the search warrant. It was found that there were procedural irregularities during the search, which amounted to a contravention of Australian law. These irregularities included the police failing to adequately identify themselves and not providing Manwarring with a copy of the warrant as required by law. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained during the search was inadmissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

As a result of the court's decision, the evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant was excluded. This ruling significantly impacted the prosecution's case against Manwarring, leading to the dismissal of the charges due to the inadmissibility of the primary evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Evidence obtained during execution of search warrant excluded

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.