R v Appleton - [2016] QSC 250

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Appleton [2016] QSC 250

PARTIES:

R

(respondent)

v

APPLETON, Linda Eileen

(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC Indictment No 299 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Application

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 July 2016

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDER:

The ruling of the Court is that:

1. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made to a covert police officer by the defendant during the detention of the defendant at the Redcliffe Police Station on 3 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is refused.

2. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made by the defendant to Gina Biancofiore and Rita Cacambow at the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre on 7 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is allowed and the Court so orders.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the defendant made admissions to a covert police officer – whether defendant under influence of an intoxicating substance at the time admissions were made

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – GENERALLY – where defendant, through her solicitor, exercised her right to silence – where defendant made admissions that were recorded by audio and video – whether the Court should exclude audio and video evidence of those admissions on the exercise of the fairness discretion or the public policy discretion

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where correctional officers had a “reception interview” with the defendant – where officers’ gave evidence that purpose of interview was to make a risk assessment and determine whether the defendant could be placed in the mainstream of the prison population or needed to be segregated – where officers were persons in authority – where officers’ questions were not aimed at eliciting information material to the risk to the defendant but were relevant only to guilt or innocence – whether, having regard to prevailing community standards, the confessional statements should be excluded

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 423

MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, cited
R v Belford and Bound [2011] QCA 43, cited
R v Nash [2014] QSC 139, cited
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered

Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396, cited

COUNSEL:

D Wilson for the defendant/applicant

M Whitbread for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Rostron Carlyle Solicitors for the defendant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

Introduction

The Crown alleges that on or about 16 June 2014 the defendant and her partner John Edward Harris tortured and murdered Ms Tia Landers at their…

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 Appleton

Details

AGLC: R v Appleton [2016] QSC 250
Case: [2016] QSC 250
Decision Date: 1 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court involved the defendant who was charged with criminal offences. The central issue was the admissibility of certain evidence obtained through police interrogation and interviews conducted in a correctional centre. The Court was required to determine whether admissions made by the defendant were obtained under the influence of an intoxicating substance, and whether they were properly obtained or were otherwise unfair to admit. The Court also had to consider the fairness and propriety of the police questioning and other conduct during the interrogation process.

The legal issues the Court needed to address included whether the admissions made by the defendant were influenced by an intoxicating substance and whether the exercise of the fairness discretion or public policy discretion warranted the exclusion of the audio and video evidence of those admissions. The Court further needed to assess whether the statements made by the defendant during the "reception interview" with correctional officers were improperly obtained, considering the officers' questions were not aimed at risk assessment but were relevant only to guilt or innocence. The Court was required to balance the prevailing community standards against the admissibility of the confessional statements.

In ruling on the admissibility of the evidence, the Court found that the admissions made to the covert police officer were not influenced by an intoxicating substance and thus were properly obtained. Consequently, the defendant’s application to exclude this evidence was refused. However, the Court held that the admissions made during the "reception interview" with the correctional officers were improperly obtained, as the questions were not relevant to risk assessment but pertained to guilt or innocence. The Court exercised its discretion under the fairness and public policy considerations to exclude this evidence.

The final orders of the Court were that the recording of admissions made to the covert police officer be admitted at the trial, whereas the recording of admissions made during the "reception interview" with the correctional officers be excluded.

Orders

Orders of the court

The ruling of the Court is that:

1. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made to a covert police officer by the defendant during the detention of the defendant at the Redcliffe Police Station on 3 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is refused.

2. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made by the defendant to Gina Biancofiore and Rita Cacambow at the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre on 7 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is allowed and the Court so orders.

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 Appleton [2016] QSC 250
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v APPLETON, Linda Eileen (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC Indictment No 299 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Pre-Trial Application
DELIVERED ON:	1 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 July 2016
JUDGE:	Bond J
ORDER:	The ruling of the Court is that: 1. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made to a covert police officer by the defendant during the detention of the defendant at the Redcliffe Police Station on 3 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is refused. 2. The defendant’s application for an order that the recording of admissions made by the defendant to Gina Biancofiore and Rita Cacambow at the Brisbane Women’s Correctional Centre on 7 July 2014 be ruled inadmissible at the defendant’s trial is allowed and the Court so orders.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT – GENERALLY – where the defendant made admissions to a covert police officer – whether defendant under influence of an intoxicating substance at the time admissions were made CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – GENERALLY – where defendant, through her solicitor, exercised her right to silence – where defendant made admissions that were recorded by audio and video – whether the Court should exclude audio and video evidence of those admissions on the exercise of the fairness discretion or the public policy discretion CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where correctional officers had a “reception interview” with the defendant – where officers’ gave evidence that purpose of interview was to make a risk assessment and determine whether the defendant could be placed in the mainstream of the prison population or needed to be segregated – where officers were persons in authority – where officers’ questions were not aimed at eliciting information material to the risk to the defendant but were relevant only to guilt or innocence – whether, having regard to prevailing community standards, the confessional statements should be excluded Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 423 MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, cited R v Belford and Bound [2011] QCA 43, cited R v Nash [2014] QSC 139, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159, considered Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396, cited
COUNSEL:	D Wilson for the defendant/applicant M Whitbread for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Rostron Carlyle Solicitors for the defendant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent