R v Carter - [2020] SADC 27

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CARTER
[2020] SADC 27
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Durrant
23 March 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
1. The accused applied an order that the prosecution not be permitted to lead evidence of items indicative of drug trafficking obtained during a search by Police of a truck he had been driving.
2. Application dismissed.
Heavy Vehicle National Law (South Australia) Act 2013 ss 521, 3(a), 5, Division 6, 26; District Court Criminal Rules r 49; Traffic Act 1961 s 47, Schedule 1, Part 4, Cl 8(3), referred to.
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Barker v R (1983) 153 CLR 338; TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Henry Alfred Anning [2002] NSWCA 82 ; Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1, considered.

R v CARTER
[2020] SADC 27
Introduction

Senior Constable Petts is a member of the Heavy Vehicle Enforcement Section of SAPOL. Following a tip-off, he made a roadside stop of a prime mover and anticipated an investigation of contraventions by the owner of the truck under the Heavy Vehicle National Law[1] (HVNL) and the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Instead, Mr Carter was driving and the owner was nowhere to be seen.
[1] The National Heavy Vehicle Law commenced on 10 February 2014 by application of the South Australian Heavy Vehicle Law National Law text, pursuant to s 4 of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (South Australia) Act2013.
SC Petts interrogated Mr Carter’s work diary and an alco test and drug swipe for methylamphetamine was obtained. SC Petts entered the cabin and undertook a search which located plastic resealable bags containing methylamphetamine, scales, two mobile phones and text messages indicative of drug trafficking.
Mr Carter has pleaded not guilty to trafficking in a controlled drug.[2] The prosecution propose to lead evidence of the search at trial.
[2] Section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
The accused has applied to exclude from the evidence at trial the items found.[3] He says they were unlawfully obtained because SC Petts entered the cabin with the sole intention of searching for drugs and when he had no lawful basis for doing so. He says SC Petts was, in fact, a trespasser. Alternatively, Mr Carter says that even if SC Petts had a dual intent: to unlawfully search for drugs and to lawfully investigate contraventions of the HVNL, the search was infected by the unlawful intent.
[3] District Court Criminal Rules r 49.
It is agreed that there was no basis, when he entered the vehicle, for SC Petts to reasonably suspect an offence under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 sufficient to allow him to search for drugs. The prosecution contends that SC Petts was lawfully entitled to enter the cabin as an authorised officer under the HVNL because he held the requisite reasonable belief to allow a…

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 Carter

Details

AGLC: R v Carter [2020] SADC 27
Case: [2020] SADC 27
Decision Date: 23 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Carter, the appellant faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence in the trial, particularly regarding its fairness and the manner in which it was obtained. The appellant contested the decision of the trial judge to admit evidence that was allegedly unfair or improperly obtained. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his judicial discretion in admitting the evidence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in his exercise of judicial discretion in admitting evidence that the appellant argued was either unfair or improperly obtained. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge had properly considered the principles and criteria relevant to determining the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the evidence was unfairly prejudicial, unreliable, or obtained in a manner that violated the appellant's legal rights.

The court reviewed the trial judge's reasoning and the principles of judicial discretion in admitting evidence. It held that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion by balancing the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect it may have had. The court found that the evidence in question was relevant, reliable, and had been obtained lawfully. Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.

The court did not issue specific orders beyond affirming the conviction and dismissing the appeal. The decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in evaluating the admissibility of evidence and the need for trial judges to carefully consider the fairness and legality of the evidence presented in criminal trials.

Orders