R v Bennetts

Case [2018] QCA 99

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bennetts [2018] QCA 99

PARTIES:

R
v
BENNETTS, Brenden Jacob
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 231 of 2017
SC No 1432 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 14 September 2017 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

29 May 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 April 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Mullins and Bowskill JJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of murder – whether the learned trial judge erred in refusing to exclude statements made and answers given by the appellant during police questioning – whether the evidence was unlawfully obtained – whether the appellant was, at the relevant time, in the company of a police officer for the purpose of being questioned as a suspect about his involvement in the commission of an indictable offence pursuant to s 415 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668D(1)(a)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 415

Bailey v Costin[1993] QCA 404, cited
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26, considered
Maeda v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2015] VSCA 367, cited
Nabole v R (2014) 43 VR 542; [2014] VSCA 297, cited
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266; [1966] HCA 21, considered
R v Kyriakou, D’Agosto and Lombardo (1987) 29 A Crim R 50, cited
R v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397, cited
R v Raso (1993) 68 A Crim R 495; [1993] VicSC 519, cited
Willis v The Queen (2016) 261 A Crim R 151; [2016] VSCA 176, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the appellant
V A Loury QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mulcahy Ryan Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P:  I agree with the reasons of Bowskill J.

  2. MULLINS J:  I agree with Bowskill J.

  3. BOWSKILL J:  The appellant was convicted of the murder of Jayde Kendall, a 16 year old school girl.  He appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that the learned trial judge erred in refusing to exclude from the evidence at trial statements made and answers given by the appellant to police between about 6 pm and midnight on 18 August 2015.

  4. The deceased was last seen alive after she left school on Friday, 14 August 2015.  Her body was not discovered until Wednesday, 26 August 2015, when she was found on rural land near Gatton.

  5. The appellant was spoken to by the police at 3.48 pm on 18 August 2015 and then again at about 6 pm on that day, following which he accompanied police to a police station.  He remained in the company of…

Continue reading R v Bennetts

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bennetts [2018] QCA 99
Case
[2018] QCA 99
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bennetts involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant, who was found guilty of murder by a jury. The trial judge ruled on various issues, including the admissibility of certain statements made by the appellant during police questioning. The appellant argued that the statements were unlawfully obtained and therefore should not have been admitted as evidence. This argument was based on the premise that the appellant was in the company of a police officer for the purpose of being questioned about his involvement in an indictable offence, as per section 415 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the trial judge erred in not excluding the contested statements from the evidence presented to the jury. This required an examination of the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, including whether they were made voluntarily and without coercion, and whether the appellant was informed of his rights, including the right to silence and the right to legal representation. The court also had to consider whether the appellant was in custody or under arrest at the time the statements were made, as these factors are relevant to determining the admissibility of the evidence under the statutory provision mentioned.

After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence in question. The court found that the appellant was not in the company of a police officer for the purpose of being questioned as a suspect about his involvement in the commission of an indictable offence at the relevant time. Consequently, the evidence was not obtained in a manner that would render it inadmissible under section 415 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The court was satisfied that the appellant's rights were respected during the police questioning and that the statements were made voluntarily. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

The final order of the court was that the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the trial judge and the conviction of the appellant for murder. The court's decision was based on the conclusion that the evidence in question was properly admitted and that the appellant's rights were not infringed upon during the police questioning. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge remained unchanged.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is 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.