R v Christensen

[2005] QSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Christensen [2005] QSC 279

PARTIES:

R
v
 CHRISTENSEN, Mark Stewart

(applicant)

INDICTMENT NO:

667 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 September 2005

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

The evidence obtained against the applicant in the search of the Rise club on 24 July 2004 is excluded. 

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – WARRANTS – SEARCH WARRANTS – ISSUE AND VALIDITY – REASONABLE GROUNDS – CERTAINTY AND WIDTH – GENERALLY – where a warrant to enter and search premises was issued pursuant to s 68(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) which is for the purpose of obtaining evidence in relation to an offence – where an offence was stated on the warrant for which no name or details were stated and evidence showed that no specific offence was contemplated by police seeking the warrant – where police intelligence had shown, generally, that offences may occur on the premises subject to the warrant – where the warrant did not comply with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) in various other respects – whether the warrant was invalid – whether the evidence obtained pursuant to its purported execution was admissible

Criminal Code (Qld), s 590AA

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 4(e), s 68(1), s 68(4), s 68(5), s 69, s 72, s 73(1), s 73(1)(b)(i), s 73(1)(c), s 73(3), s 74

COUNSEL:

Mr C F C Wilson for the defendant

Mr J Copley for the Director of Public Prosecutions

SOLICITORS:

Bell Miller for the defendant

The Director of Public Prosecutions

1. The applicant is charged on indictment with two counts of unlawful possession of dangerous drugs: 3,4-methlylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy) and methylamphetamine. He seeks a ruling pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code that certain evidence located in the course of a search of premises is inadmissible, on the basis that the warrant pursuant to which it was seized was not valid. 

1. The search warrant in question was executed at about 7.00 am on 24 July 2004 at Rise, a club at Fortitude Valley. It is what is described as a “recovery” club:  unlicensed premises to which club-goers repair in the early hours of the morning.  Seventy-six persons were found there; 18 of them were arrested on a total of 28 charges.  In the course of the search, it is alleged, a bag belonging to the defendant was searched. In it were found clip-seal bags containing 114 tablets and a small quantity of a white crystal substance, as well as separate sums of money amounting respectively to $1,160 and $18,050. 

1. The application for a warrant to enter and search the premises was made pursuant to s 68(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (‘the Act’), which provides:

“A police officer may apply for a warrant to enter and search a place (search warrant) to…