SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Andrews [2011] QSC 168 PARTIES: THE QUEEN
VSHAUN ROSS ANDREW
(Applicant)
FILE NO/S: 18/11 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court Mackay DELIVERED ON: 16 June 2011 DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton HEARING DATE: 1 June 2011 JUDGE: McMeekin J ORDER: 1. The evidence of the conversations that took place in the course of the interview commencing at or about 1.40 am and concluding at or about 2.13 am on 4 December 2008 between the applicant and police officers is inadmissible and is not to be led in evidence in the prosecution case.
2. The application is otherwise dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - Whether confessions was induced by a promise - Whether unlawfully obtained evidence admissible
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - Whether confessions were admissible
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 52, s 158, s 271
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), s 43
Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246
R v Plotzki [1972] Qd R 379
R v Stead [1994] 1 Qd R 665
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159
R v Williamson [2010] QCA 277
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396COUNSEL: J Sharp for the Applicant
D Morters for the CrownSOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the Applicant
Department of Public Prosecution for the Crown
Shaun Ross Andrews is charged with one count of murder and one count of attempted murder. The offences allegedly occurred on 3 December 2008. The deceased was Joelean Watson, the applicant’s former de facto partner. The complainant in count 2 is Makayla Andrew, who is the daughter of the deceased and the applicant. She was 2 years old at the time of the alleged offences.
The deceased died as a result of multiple stab wounds.
This is an application brought pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code. The prosecution wish to lead evidence of confessional statements said to have been made by Mr Andrews at various times to police officers and to his mother and sister. Mr Andrews objects to their admission into evidence.
The relevant statements were allegedly made in several conversations that took place at various times. The conversations can be categorised as follows –
(a) the initial confession – made to a Constable Melanie Dove at the counter of the police station on 3 December 2008;
(b) the police confessions - to Constable Morris and other police at the station on 4 and 5 December 2008;
(c) the prison confessions – recorded during non-contact visits by relatives on 12 and 21 December 2008.
The Statement to Constable Dove
Shortly after 7.30pm on 3 December 2008, the applicant attended the Gladstone Police Station with Makayla. The…
Continue reading R v Andrews
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Andrews [2011] QSC 168
- Case
- [2011] QSC 168
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and considered the authorities, including Bunning v Cross, R v Batchelor, R v Plotzki, R v Stead, R v Swaffield, R v Williamson, Ridgeway v The Queen, and Tofilau v The Queen. The court also considered the statutory provisions of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), and the Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The court held that the appellant's evidence during the interview in question was inadmissible as it was obtained through an improper inducement by the police, which contravened the statutory provisions and authorities.
The court found that the police had made a promise to the appellant that influenced his decision to confess, which was a breach of the statutory provisions and authorities. The court held that the evidence obtained during the interview commencing at or about 1.40 am and concluding at or about 2.13 am on 4 December 2008 was inadmissible and could not be led in evidence in the prosecution case. The application was otherwise dismissed.
The court made an order that the evidence of the conversations that took place in the course of the interview commencing at or about 1.40 am and concluding at or about 2.13 am on 4 December 2008 between the applicant and police officers was inadmissible and could not be led in evidence in the prosecution case. The court also dismissed the application in all other respects.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The evidence of the conversations that took place in the course of the interview commencing at or about 1.40 am and concluding at or about 2.13 am on 4 December 2008 between the applicant and police officers is inadmissible and is not to be led in evidence in the prosecution case.
2. The application is otherwise 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.