CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Application to exclude evidence of the fruits of the search of the accused, and that of the search of residential premises at Brompton by the Police on 18 January 2017 (the subject premises). Police alerted about a home invasion at Ridleyton – two officers tasked to attend at Ridleyton premises, two other police officers tasked to check streets in Brompton area - the latter two observed the accused near the front door of the subject premises shortly thereafter – they suspected that the accused had committed the offence at Ridleyton – Police entered the front yard of the subject premises without a warrant – they ‘detained’ the accused while they continued to investigate – they conducted a search of the person of the accused, and of the area where he was initially positioned – they seized some property including a ‘beanie’, a mask, cash in the sum of $170.00 and some black gloves – consideration of the lawfulness of the entry onto the subject premises; and of the searches, whether responses by the accused were allegedly obtained in breach of the Summary Offences Act - whether evidence of the police officers as to their suspicions ought to be rejected - whether the suspicions were reasonable - whether search of the accused's person was unlawful - whether the search of the land was unlawful - whether the police breached s 74D and s 79A of the Summary Offences Act - whether the evidence obtained by the police ought to be excluded.
HELD: The evidence of the police officer who conducted the searches was credible - there was a reasonable suspicion held by him to justify the search of the accused - the search of the accused was lawful pursuant to s 68 of the Summary Offences Act. In conducting a search of the subject premises and for failing to give the accused his rights under the Act, the Police officers acted unlawfully – However in the proper exercise of the discretion under Bunning v Cross the evidence will be admitted in the trial – the application by the accused to exclude the evidence is refused.
[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 C, CJ
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v C, CJ [2018] SADC 76
Case
[2018] SADC 76
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v C, CJ, the defendant applied to exclude evidence obtained from the search of their person and a residential premises at Brompton by police on 18 January 2017. The evidence in question was seized following the officers' suspicions that the defendant had committed an offence at a different location. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the evidence obtained from the searches, the lawfulness of the police entry onto the premises, and whether the searches were conducted in compliance with the Summary Offences Act.
The court examined the reasonableness of the officers' suspicions, the legality of their entry onto the premises, and whether the searches of the defendant's person and the premises were lawful. The court found that the officer's suspicions were reasonable, justifying the search of the defendant under Section 68 of the Summary Offences Act. However, the court determined that the police acted unlawfully by entering the premises without a warrant and failing to inform the defendant of their rights under the Act. Despite this, the court exercised its discretion under Bunning v Cross and decided to admit the evidence, ruling that the application to exclude the evidence was refused.
The court's reasoning was grounded in the balance between the individual's right to privacy and the public's interest in effective law enforcement. The unlawful entry and failure to provide statutory rights were deemed significant, but not enough to warrant exclusion of the evidence under the specific circumstances. The court held that the evidence obtained would be admissible at trial.
The final order of the court was that the application by the defendant to exclude the evidence was refused. The evidence obtained from the searches would be admitted at the trial.