R v Bossley

Case [2012] QSC 292


+SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
VICTOR BURDEKIN BOSSLEY
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SUP 471/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2012

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to exclude evidence of a search – where the defendant is charged with trafficking and possessing MDMA – whether the search of the defendant was conducted with lawful authority – whether the police officers had reasonable grounds for suspicion pursuant to s 29 of the PPRA – whether the defendant consented to the search – the effect of consent on the legality of a search – whether the consent given was true consent – when the defendant should have been warned

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Bain v Police [2011] SASC 228
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Coco v R
(1994) 179 CLR 427
Director of Public Prosecutions v Leonard
[2001] NSWSC 797
George v Rockett
(1990) 170 CLR 104
Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 QB 693
Halliday v Nevill & Anor (1984) 155 CLR 1
Kaldon Karout v Constable Mathew Stratton
[2007] NSWSC 1034
Kuru v State of New South Wales
(2008) 236 CLR 1
Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
[1979] Ch 344
Pearce v Button
(1986) 60 ALR 537
Police v Moukachar
[2010] SASC 199
R v Azar (1991) 56 A Crim R 414
R v Rondo
[2001] NSWCCA 540
Werner v Police High Court of New Zealand, Gallen J, 16 April 1986, unreported
Wineberg v Stafford
White J, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 22 July 1997, BC 9703190

COUNSEL:

Mr C Heaton for the applicant
Mr K Spinaze for the Crown

SOLICITORS:

Mulcahy Ryan Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

  1. Mr Bossley faces two counts on indictment: trafficking and possessing a Schedule 1 drug, MDMA. This application is made under s 590AA of the Criminal Code to exclude certain evidence from his trial.

  1. On 1 October 2011 Mr Bossley, a man in his early 20s, was planning to attend a music festival in the botanic gardens in Brisbane.  He travelled to Brisbane with his girlfriend and another friend, and met his younger sister and some of her friends in Brisbane at about 11.00 am on the morning of the festival.  Mr Bossley is tall and lean, with an alert and enthusiastic appearance.  His girlfriend described him as someone who fidgets a lot, and one of his other friends said he has trouble standing still in one spot.    He was no doubt excited to go to the festival and pleased to see his younger sister when they met in Mary Street before the festival.

  1. Mr Bossley was observed by Detective Senior Constable Caulfield…

Continue reading R v Bossley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292
Case
[2012] QSC 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Bossley, sought an order to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his person and belongings. The evidence was sought to be excluded under section 590AA of the Criminal Code on the basis that it was unfair to admit or obtained improperly. The evidence in question was obtained during a search of the applicant by police officers who suspected him of trafficking and possessing MDMA. The applicant argued that the search was conducted without lawful authority and that the police officers did not have reasonable grounds for suspicion. The applicant further argued that he did not give true consent to the search and that he should have been warned before the search was conducted.

The court had to decide whether the police officers had lawful authority to conduct the search, whether they had reasonable grounds for suspicion, whether the applicant consented to the search, and if so, whether that consent was true consent. The court also had to consider the effect of consent on the legality of a search and when the applicant should have been warned.

The court found that the police officers had lawful authority to conduct the search as they had reasonable grounds for suspicion under section 29 of the PPRA. The court further found that the applicant had consented to the search, and that his consent was true consent. The court held that the legality of a search is not affected by the fact that the person searched consented to the search. The court also found that the applicant should have been warned before the search was conducted, but that this did not affect the legality of the search. The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.