Police v Hill

[2008] QMC 6

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Police v Hill [2008] QMC 006

PARTIES:

POLICE

(prosecution)

v

NATHAN ALLAN ROYCE HILL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

MAG155437/07(3)

DIVISION:

Magistrates Court

PROCEEDING:

Charge

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 January 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 January 2008

MAGISTRATE:

Previtera T

ORDER:

Defendant found guilty on both charges

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES – possession

Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld), s 252(1)

Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld), s 15(1)

COUNSEL:

T Clare (sen const) appeared for the prosecution

M Robinson (sol) appeared for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prosecution on their own behalf

ATSILS for the defendant

1. In this matter the defendant Nathan Allan Royce Hill is charged as follows;

1.   That on the 4^th of September, 2007 at Brisbane he possessed property, namely a pink Apple I-Pod and a silver mobile phone that may reasonably be suspected of being tainted property; pursuant to s 252(1) Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld).

2.   That on the 4^th of September, 2007 at Brisbane he possessed implements, namely a screw-driver, a torch and a walkie-talkie that was (sic) to be used for burglary of a dwelling; pursuant to s 15(1) Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld).  (At the hearing, however, the prosecution proceeded on this second charge in relation to the screw-driver and torch only).

1. The prosecution called one witness, Constable Brett Day Richard, who produced photographs of each of the items the subject of the charges (Exhibit 1).

1. The defendant neither gave nor called evidence.

1. The following facts are not disputed:-

1. At approximately 10pm on the 4^th of September, 2007 Plain Clothes Constables Brett Day Richard and Collins were travelling along Junction Road near the Eagle Junction train station when they observed the defendant and a female in the car park of the train station.  Constable Richard formed a view that the defendant and the female were involved in an argument, with the defendant being the aggressor. The Constables approached the defendant and asked the defendant to empty his pockets. The defendant did so and was observed then to have a syringe in his right hand. 

2. Constable Richard then detained the defendant for the purposes of a further search and gave the defendant the requisite warnings as required by the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Constable Richard then directed the defendant to put the backpack which the defendant was carrying, down on the ground.  The defendant did so and the police officer then searched the backpack and found the items the subject of the charges. (The defendant did not touch the backpack at any time after placing it on the ground).

3. Constable Richard then asked the defendant a number of questions in relation to the items found. The defendant was unable to supply details as to where he got the I-Pod, who had the I-Pod before him and the inscription written on the I-Pod (but scratched over). In relation to questions about the screw driver,…