R v Briggs - [2011] QSC 337

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Briggs [2011] QSC 337

PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
(Respondent)
V

JAMES DANIEL BRIGGS

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S: 24/11

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court Mackay

DELIVERED ON: 15 November 2011

DELIVERED AT: Mackay

HEARING DATE: 8 November 2011

JUDGE: McMeekin J

ORDER: The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARRESTS, SEARCH SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - where warrant was not obtained - where search was claimed to be conducted to prevent evidence being concealed or destroyed - whether evidence was unlawfully obtained
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - Where several people were arrested at scene of search for aggravated possession - Where arrestees provided statements to police -Whether unlawfully obtained evidence admissible
Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s150, s 151, s 160

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
R v Day [2008] QSC 358
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Koning [2001] QSC 131
R v Munck [2010] QSC 416
R v Stead [1994] 1 Qd R 665
R v Williamson [2009] QSC 434
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

COUNSEL:

S McLennan for the Applicant
C Winlaw for the Respondent

SOLICITORS: Morton Lawyers for the Applicant
Department of Public Prosecution for the Crown

McMeekin J: This is an application brought pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code by James Daniel Briggs. He is charged with one count of trafficking. He seeks rulings preventing the prosecution leading the following evidence:

(a) Evidence of amphetamines and other items allegedly associated with drug dealing or taking found at a car yard in the course of a police search; and

(b) Testimonial evidence of witnesses arrested during the course of the police search of the car yard.

The complaint is that the police failed to obtain a search warrant prior to conducting the search, had no good grounds for conducting what they referred to as an “emergent search” and had no grounds for making the arrests of the various witnesses and that, as a result, the evidence was obtained unlawfully and ought to be excluded in the exercise of the Court’s discretion on the principles explained in cases such as R v Ireland[1], Bunning v Cross[2] and Ridgeway v The Queen.[3]
[1](1970) 126 CLR 321 at 334-5.
[2](1978) 141 CLR 54.
[3](1995) 184 CLR 19 at 30-31; 38.

It is common ground that police attended at a car yard shortly before midday on 22 October 2008. The applicant, along with six others, was then present at the yard. The police located amphetamines in two locations inside a caravan in the yard. The amphetamine was contained in two containers, one a black container found on the floor of the van and the other a small white package found on a shelf. About 12 minutes after the police commenced their search of the yard one David Brown entered 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 Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2011] QSC 337
Case: [2011] QSC 337
Decision Date: 15 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Briggs involved a dispute concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant during a search and subsequent arrests. The matter was heard in the court where the accused, Briggs, faced charges related to aggravated possession. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained during the search and subsequent statements from the arrested individuals were unlawfully obtained and thus inadmissible. The court had to determine if the police actions were justified under any exceptions to the warrant requirement and whether the evidence gathered should be excluded under judicial discretion.

The court examined the circumstances leading to the search and arrests, focusing on whether there were exigent circumstances that justified the actions taken without a warrant. It considered whether the police had reasonable grounds to believe that evidence was being concealed or destroyed, which might have warranted an immediate search. Additionally, the court assessed whether the evidence obtained from the arrested individuals was tainted by the initial unlawful search, potentially making it inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court concluded that the search and subsequent arrests were not justified under any applicable exceptions to the warrant requirement. Consequently, the evidence obtained was deemed to be the result of an unlawful search and was inadmissible. However, the court found that the statements provided by the arrested individuals were not tainted by the initial unlawful search and were therefore admissible. The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the case proceeded with the admissible evidence.

The court's final order was that the application to exclude the evidence obtained without a warrant was dismissed. The unlawfully obtained evidence was ruled inadmissible, but the statements from the arrested individuals were deemed admissible. This decision highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures in obtaining evidence and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application 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.

CITATION:	R v Briggs [2011] QSC 337
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (Respondent) V JAMES DANIEL BRIGGS (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	24/11
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	15 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Mackay
HEARING DATE:	8 November 2011
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	The application is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARRESTS, SEARCH SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - where warrant was not obtained - where search was claimed to be conducted to prevent evidence being concealed or destroyed - whether evidence was unlawfully obtained CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - Where several people were arrested at scene of search for aggravated possession - Where arrestees provided statements to police -Whether unlawfully obtained evidence admissible Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s150, s 151, s 160 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 R v Day [2008] QSC 358 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Koning [2001] QSC 131 R v Munck [2010] QSC 416 R v Stead [1994] 1 Qd R 665 R v Williamson [2009] QSC 434 Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19
COUNSEL:	S McLennan for the Applicant C Winlaw for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Morton Lawyers for the Applicant Department of Public Prosecution for the Crown