R v Chandler - [2011] QDC 279

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chandler [2011] QDC 279

PARTIES:

The Queen
(Respondent)

V

JOHN THOMAS CHANDLER
(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

127/11

DIVISION:

Crime

PROCEEDING:

Application under s 590AA Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2011 and 22 July 2011

JUDGE:

RS Jones DCJ

ORDER:

The application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – whether confessional evidence ought be ruled inadmissible on the basis that it was not voluntarily made – whether respondent induced by a threat or promise made by a person in authority to make admissions

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 590AA
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 s 10

R v Kassulke [2004] QCA 175

COUNSEL:

Mr A. Hoare for the applicant

Mr S. Gordon for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for the respondent

An application has been made by the applicant pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to have certain admissions made by him during interviews with the police ruled inadmissible because they were induced and not voluntarily made. For the reasons set out below, the application fails.

Background

The applicant is charged with a number of offences: unlawful use of a motor vehicle with circumstances of aggravation, entering premises and stealing, and armed robbery with personal violence. The robbery and enter premises offences relate to the same restaurant located in Sunnybank but occurred on separate occasions.

On 21 June 2010 the applicant participated in a formal record of interview with the police at the Acacia Ridge police station and accompanied the police on a “drive around” style interview. During the course of those interviews the applicant made a number of admissions, including directing the police to relevant locations. The record of interview was not played at the hearing of the application.

At the time, the applicant was already subject to a parole order and the supervision of probation and parole officers and was living with his parents. That parole order was due to expire some time around August 2010.[1] On 21 June 2010 the applicant’s mother told him that some time previously she had received a call from a person who identified himself as being a representative of the Parole Board, and that a relevant parole officer was trying to locate him. Apparently this person (or some other person) had rung the applicant’s parent’s home on several occasions and on each occasion identified themselves as being from the Parole Board. On one of these occasions the applicant accepted the call. In his affidavit the applicant deposes as follows:
[1]Affidavit of applicant para 7.

“14.I answered the phone, I cannot recall if the person identified themselves other than saying it was community corrections. They asked if I was home. I clearly was because I answered on the home number. They asked if they could come and see me. I…

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 Chandler

Details

AGLC: R v Chandler [2011] QDC 279
Case: [2011] QDC 279
Decision Date: 7 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chandler, the respondent, Chandler, appealed against his conviction on the grounds that his confessional evidence should not have been admitted, as it was not voluntary. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. Chandler was convicted of murder, and his appeal hinged on the admissibility of his confession, which he claimed was not made voluntarily due to coercion by a person in authority.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether Chandler's confession was indeed coerced and whether the police had used undue influence or made improper promises to elicit his admissions. The court had to determine whether Chandler's will was overborne at the time he made the confession, which would render it inadmissible.

The court, after considering the evidence and arguments, concluded that Chandler's will was not overborne, and the confession was voluntary. The court found that there was no evidence to support Chandler's claim that he was induced by a threat or promise made by a person in authority. The court held that the confession was properly admitted and did not violate any legal principles regarding the voluntariness of confessions.

The application for appeal was refused, and Chandler's conviction was upheld. The High Court confirmed that the trial judge was correct in admitting the confessional evidence, and the conviction stood as decided by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused.

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 Chandler [2011] QDC 279
PARTIES:	The Queen (Respondent) V JOHN THOMAS CHANDLER (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	127/11
DIVISION:	Crime
PROCEEDING:	Application under s 590AA Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2011 and 22 July 2011
JUDGE:	RS Jones DCJ
ORDER:	The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – whether confessional evidence ought be ruled inadmissible on the basis that it was not voluntarily made – whether respondent induced by a threat or promise made by a person in authority to make admissions Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 590AA Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 s 10 R v Kassulke [2004] QCA 175
COUNSEL:	Mr A. Hoare for the applicant Mr S. Gordon for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecution for the respondent