Legal Research
Cases
R v As and Raynor

R v As and Raynor

Case [2023] SADC 60 17 May 2023

Searches of Persons, Property or Premises

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v AS AND RAYNOR
[2023] SADC 60
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Judge Handshin
17 May 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PROCEDURE - SEARCHES OF PERSONS, PROPERTY OR PREMISES
Application to exclude evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle. On 1 January 2021, police on mobile uniform patrol began following a van being driven by the accused, AS, in Campbelltown. The van pulled over in the vicinity of, but on a different street to, an address known to police to be associated with drug offending. Neither the van, nor the accused, had any identifiable association with the address. The accused was never seen to act in a manner manifesting an intention to attend upon the address. The van the accused was driving was registered to another person and had a recorded address in Morphett Vale. After the van stopped, police conducted an identification check.
The identification check revealed no issues with AS’ licence and he had provided accurate information to the police about the ownership of the van. After completing the identification check, police examined intelligence holdings relating to the accused on the mobile police system. Three intelligence holdings suggested the accused had a conviction for manufacturing a controlled drug in 2011; had been nominated as the cook of a large clandestine laboratory discovered by police in 2019; and had, in the weeks or months leading up to December 2020, been conducting activities indicating some involvement with manufacturing methamphetamine. There was no information to suggest that the accused would be in the possession of methamphetamine on 1 January 2021 nor that he used vehicles as a means of conveying illicit substances. Police searched the car pursuant to s 52(9) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) on the basis of a suspicion that there would be methamphetamine in the vehicle having regard to the proximity of the van to the “drug” address; the fact that the accused was the sole occupant of a van registered to another person and which had a recorded address some distance from Campbelltown; that the accused was sweating and unable to provide the street number of a friend's house he said he was intending to visit; and based on the intelligence holdings.
Held: Although the searching officer genuinely suspected that a search of the van would uncover methamphetamine, that suspicion was not reasonably held. On the information available to the searching officer, there was no known association between the accused or the van and the “drug” address. The physical proximity of the van to the address was, in this case, of no moment given the circumstances in which the van came to stop, namely, having been followed by police in a marked patrol car for just under 1km. There was nothing about the accused’s presentation or the information he provided to police that could rationally arouse a suspicion that there were drugs in the vehicle and the information extracted from the…

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 As and Raynor

Details

AGLC: R v As and Raynor [2023] SADC 60
Case: [2023] SADC 60
Decision Date: 17 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v As and Raynor, the defendants were charged with drug offences. The dispute arose from an incident where the police executed a search warrant at the defendants' residence, during which they discovered illegal substances. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendants challenged the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained, arguing that the search warrant was invalid and the search was conducted without proper authority.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the search warrant was validly executed and whether the evidence obtained during the search was admissible in court. The defendants argued that the warrant lacked the necessary particularity and that the police had not acted within the bounds of the law when executing the search. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the warrant was properly issued and that the police acted lawfully.

The court examined the validity of the search warrant, including whether it contained all the necessary particulars as required by law. The court also assessed whether the police had followed the correct procedures when executing the search and whether they acted within the scope of the warrant. After considering the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the search warrant was validly issued and that the police executed the search lawfully. Consequently, the evidence obtained during the search was deemed admissible. The defendants' challenge to the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence was therefore rejected.

The court found both defendants guilty of the drug offences. The final orders of the court were that the defendants be sentenced accordingly.

Orders