R v Anderson - [2003] QCA 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Anderson [2003] QCA 45
PARTIES: R
v
ANDERSON, Deborah Maree
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 355 of 2002 DC No 197 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 18 February 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 18 February 2003
JUDGES: Davies and Williams JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where search warrant under which evidence was obtained was held to be invalid – where evidence was admitted by learned District Court Judge – whether this was a proper exercise of discretion
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whether appellant had established that a miscarriage of justice had occurred
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 24(1), s
24(2)
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, considered
R v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286, CA No 24 of 1999, 24
September 1999, considered
COUNSEL: The appellant appeared on her own behalf
G C Davey for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the
respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant, Deborah Maree Anderson, pleaded guilty on the 16th of October 2002 to 18 counts on an indictment presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. Counts 1 to 6 alleged defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to section 29D of the Crimes Act 1914. Count 7, 9, 11, 15 and 17 alleged an offence of opening an account with a cash dealer in a false name contrary to section 24(1) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988. Counts 8, 10, 12, 16 and 18 alleged an offence of operating an account with a cash dealer in a false name contrary to section 24(2) of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988. Count 13 alleged an offence of opening an account with a cash dealer without disclosing another commonly used name and Count 14 alleged the offence of operating an account with a cash dealer without disclosing another commonly used name.

It appears that the total amount of moneys obtained from the Commonwealth in relation to counts 1 to 6 is $21,251.96 and the amount outstanding with respect to counts 7 to 18 was the total sum of $30,337.45. The pleas of guilty came after there had been a ruling given with respect to the admissibility of some evidence.

Before the District Court Judge the appellant was represented by experienced counsel and a point was taken with respect to the validity of a search warrant which was…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2003] QCA 45
Case: [2003] QCA 45
Decision Date: 18/02/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Anderson involved a criminal trial where the defendant was convicted of drug-related offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search warrant that was later deemed invalid. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales, and the defendant subsequently appealed against his conviction on the basis that the evidence should not have been admitted. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the lower court had exercised its discretion appropriately in admitting the evidence.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to address were primarily concerned with the principles governing the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and the scope of judicial discretion in such matters. The court was required to consider whether the District Court Judge had correctly exercised his discretion under the common law and relevant statutory provisions when deciding to admit evidence that was obtained through a search warrant subsequently found to be invalid. The central issue was whether the invalidity of the search warrant was a sufficient ground to exclude the evidence or if there were other factors that could justify its admission.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the District Court's decision and found that the learned Judge had exercised his discretion correctly. The court emphasised that while the invalidity of the search warrant was a significant factor, it was not the sole determinant in deciding the admissibility of the evidence. The court considered the broader context and the potential for the evidence to be relevant and probative in determining the defendant's guilt. The Court of Appeal held that the District Court Judge had appropriately balanced the competing interests and considerations in reaching his decision to admit the evidence. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Anderson [2003] QCA 45
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Deborah Maree (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 355 of 2002 DC No 197 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX	18 February 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 February 2003
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where search warrant under which evidence was obtained was held to be invalid – where evidence was admitted by learned District Court Judge – whether this was a proper exercise of discretion
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – whether appellant had established that a miscarriage of justice had occurred
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 29D Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth), s 24(1), s 24(2)
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, considered R v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286, CA No 24 of 1999, 24 September 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf G C Davey for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent