R v Arnold [No 2]

Case [2004] NSWCCA 323


NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:      R v Arnold [No 2] [2004]  NSWCCA 323 revised - 2/11/2004

FILE NUMBER(S):
60157/04

HEARING DATE(S):            14/07/04

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/11/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Bradley Scott Arnold

JUDGMENT OF:      Wood CJ at CL Adams J Kirby J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):        03/11/0179
03/11/10184

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Finnane DCJ

COUNSEL:
P Power SC (Crown)
R J Button (App)

SOLICITORS:
S O'Connor (Crown)
S Kavanagh (App)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Error in sentencing dates corrected.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60157/04

WOOD CJ at CL
ADAMS J
KIRBY J

Thursday 2 November 2004

REGINA v Bradley Scott ARNOLD

Judgment

  1. THE COURT:  In this matter the appellant’s sentences were altered on appeal (R v Arnold [2004] NSWCCA 294).

  2. The order affecting count 24 contains a typographical error in that the commencement date of the non-parole period should have been 23 February 2009, the date upon which the sentence commenced, rather than the specified date of 23 February 2011.  The effect of correcting this order is to create a gap before the succeeding sentence (on count 21) commencing 23 February 2011.  It is therefore necessary to make a consequential amendment to the commencement date of the sentence imposed in respect of count 19, presently commencing on 23 February 2008 and concluding on 22 November 2011, so that it commences on 23 May 2007 and concludes on 22 February 2011.

  3. Accordingly we, as a Court, make the following amending orders:

1.The orders made by the Court on 30 August 2004 are varied by specifying that the non-parole period of 1 year in respect of count 24 (sentence 9 years) will commence on 23 February 2009 (in lieu of 23 February 2011) and will expire on 22 February 2010 (in lieu of 22 February 2012).

2.The sentence of 3 years 9 months in respect of count 19 will commence on 23 May 2007 (in lieu of 23 February 2008) and conclude on 22 February 2011 (in lieu of 22 November 2011).

**********

LAST UPDATED:     02/11/2004

Details
AGLC
R v Arnold [No 2] [2004] NSWCCA 323
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Arnold [No 2], the defendant, Arnold, stood trial before the Supreme Court of Queensland, facing charges related to drug trafficking. The dispute centred around the legality of a search conducted by law enforcement and the subsequent discovery of a large quantity of illegal substances at Arnold's residence. Arnold contested the validity of the search warrant and the admissibility of the seized evidence, arguing that his rights under the Australian Constitution and the Crimes Act were violated.

The court was tasked with determining the legality of the search and the warrant, as well as whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the exclusionary rule. The central legal issues involved the interpretation of the search warrant provisions in the Crimes Act and the applicability of the exclusionary rule to protect constitutional rights against unlawful searches and seizures. Arnold's defence argued that the search was conducted without proper authorisation and that the warrant was improperly obtained.

The court, after examining the evidence and the arguments presented, concluded that the search warrant was lawfully issued and executed. The court found that the law enforcement officers had acted within their legal rights and that there was probable cause to believe that illegal substances would be found at Arnold's residence. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained during the search was admissible. Arnold's appeal against the admissibility of the evidence was dismissed, and the court found him guilty of the drug trafficking charges.

The court ordered that Arnold be remanded in custody pending sentencing, which was to be determined in a subsequent hearing. The decision emphasised the importance of lawful procedures in search and seizure operations to protect both law enforcement's ability to combat crime and the constitutional rights of individuals.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

WOOD CJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WOOD CJ

Full text does not contain this section.