R v Chorley - [2000] TASSC 30

[2000] TASSC 30

CITATION: R v Chorley [2000] TASSC 30

PARTIES:  R
  v
  CHORLEY, Alan William

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  262/1999
DELIVERED ON:  7 April 2000
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  5 April 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Prosecution:  C Rheinberger
             Accused:  D Grey
Solicitors:
             Prosecution:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  Zeeman Kable & Page

Judgment ID Number: [2000] TASSC 30
Number of paragraphs: 12

Serial No 30/2000
File No 262/1999

THE QUEEN v ALAN WILLIAM CHORLEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SLICER J
RULING GIVEN ORALLY APRIL 2000

The accused seeks to exclude evidence of the finding and seizure of cannabis from a property situate at Bridgenorth in Tasmania. On 9 September 1998 police officers acting in accordance with the terms of a warrant went to premises situate at 888 Bridgenorth Road and located a quantity of cannabis which had been stored in a shed situate on that property. The warrant had been issued by Mr David Cullen, a Justice of the Peace, in Launceston. At 8.46am Constable Edwards placed before the Justice an application for the issue of a warrant in the following terms:

"I am an Inspector pursuant to section 23 of the Poisons Act 1971.
I have received information from an informant that Alan "Bill" CHORLEY of Bridgenorth Rd, Bridgenorth is currently in possession of cannabis at his residence. My informant states that he was at CHORLEY'S residence recently, and observed a quantity of cannabis in the loungeroom. My informant also states that CHORLEY informed him that he was attempting to sell a large quantity of cannabis.
I have known my informant for six (6) months, and during that time he has proved reliable, and able to identify Cannabis to me.
Checks reveal that Alan William CHORLEY currently resides at ~~887~~ 888 Bridgenorth Rd, Bridgenorth.
Checks reveal that Alan William CHORLEY has prior Poisons Act convictions.
Cannabis is a prohibited substance under the provisions of the Poisons Act 1971."

The Justice did not question the officer in relation to the contents of the application but relied upon its internal material as forming sufficient cause for him to issue the warrant.

Police officers went to Bridgenorth Road and on examining the contents of a letterbox ascertained that the correct address was 888 Bridgenorth Road rather than 887. At about 10.13am the officers returned to the Justice of the Peace and Detective Constable Stewart informed him of the altered address and requested that the warrant be amended. The Justice did so and the officers returned to the premises where the cannabis was located.

The basis on which the accused seeks to exclude the evidence is that the Justice did not exercise his own judgment in the decision to grant the warrant. Counsel for the applicant claimed that the Justice did not act in accordance with the principles of law as discussed in The Queen v McLeod [1991] Tas SR at 144 and Dean v White A13/1996.

The application to exclude…

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 Chorley

Details

AGLC: R v Chorley [2000] TASSC 30
Case: [2000] TASSC 30
Decision Date: 7 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania was asked to consider the validity of evidence obtained from a warrant issued under the Poisons Act 1971. Alan William Chorley sought to exclude evidence found during a search of his property at Bridgenorth, Tasmania. The warrant had been issued on the basis of information from an informant that Chorley was in possession of cannabis at his residence. The informant claimed to have recently observed a quantity of cannabis at Chorley's home and that Chorley intended to sell a large quantity. The informant was known to the police officer who submitted the warrant application and had proved reliable in identifying cannabis.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Justice of the Peace exercised his own judgment in issuing the warrant. Chorley argued that the Justice did not act in accordance with the principles discussed in The Queen v McLeod [1991] Tas SR at 144 and Dean v White A13/1996. Specifically, he contended that the Justice should have questioned the officer about the informant's reliability and the currency of the information. The court examined whether the Justice independently assessed the information presented and if the warrant was based on reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The court found that the Justice did exercise his own judgment. He relied on the information provided in the application, which included the reliability of the informant and the recent observation of cannabis at Chorley's residence. The Justice made his decision based on the material presented to him and did not need to question the officer further. The court emphasized that a Justice of the Peace is required to exercise judgment on the basis of the material placed before them and that the standard for suspicion is one of reasonable grounds supported by some foundation of fact. The Justice's decision to issue the warrant was valid as he was satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for suspicion.

In relation to the second issue, the court held that the conversation between the officer and Chorley, where Chorley accepted he was the occupant of the property searched, could be admitted as evidence. The court found that the conversation was relevant to establishing a nexus between the accused and the property searched and that there was no unfairness or abuse of statutory power in the officer's actions. The conversation occurred after Chorley had been given the opportunity to be interviewed and had declined on legal advice, thus no obligation to warn existed.

The court concluded that the warrant was validly issued and the evidence obtained from the search could be admitted. Additionally, the conversation between the officer and Chorley was deemed admissible as it was relevant and not unfairly obtained.

Orders