R v Collins - [2015] SASC 53

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Voir Dire (Murder))
R v COLLINS
[2015] SASC 53
Reasons for Rulings of The Honourable Justice Vanstone
2 April 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION
Accused charged with murder - application by accused for order excluding evidence of interview between police and accused as a matter of discretion - contention that questioning had continued in the face of the accused indicating unwillingness to answer questions .
Held: application refused.
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; R v King and Pitson (No 1) (1998) 199 LSJS 104; R v Kageregere [2011] SASC 154; R v Bueti (1997) 70 SASR 370; R v Stafford (1976) 13 SASR 392; R v Hutchison (1993) 171 LSJS 364, considered.

R v COLLINS
[2015] SASC 53
Criminal
Application for exclusion of evidence

VANSTONE J: Darren Michael Collins is charged with the murder of Jacqueline Franklin. He has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but the prosecution does not accept that plea in answer to the charge.
The trial is to start today, 23 March 2015.
By Rule 49 application the accused seeks an order excluding from evidence the interview between the accused and police officers Koch and Winterfield, which took place on 29 October 2013.
The victim in this matter was last seen on either 15 October, or in the early hours of 16 October 2013 on a street in Woodville Gardens. On 17 December 2013 her body was found buried at a house premises at Stansbury. The victim’s father had reported her missing on 25 October.
By 29 October police investigating the disappearance had information that Ms Franklin was last seen with the accused on 15 October.
On 29 October the accused was in custody at the Port Augusta prison where he was on remand for a recently committed theft from the Ardrossan BP Service Station and in relation to property which had been stolen from a house at Houghton on Tuesday, 15 October.
Police attended at the prison at about 11.00 am and recorded an interview with the accused. After obtaining the accused’s date of birth and home address Senior Constable Koch told him that they were investigating Jacqueline Franklin’s disappearance and gave him a caution in regular terms. During the short conversation which followed the accused said:
I don’t think I will be answering any questions but.
Later, after having agreed that he had seen Ms Franklin on the evening of 14 October at the time she was working on Hanson Road, he said:
I mean ah that’s as far as I can tell you, apart from that I’m not sure what’s going on. So I’d rather not answer any more questions but… Yeah ahm that’s all I know of her so.
And upon his attitude then being clarified he said:
Yeah I’d rather speak to a lawyer before I answer any more questions.
Counsel for the accused, Mr Mead SC, contends that as…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2015] SASC 53
Case: [2015] SASC 53
Decision Date: 2 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collins involved the accused, Collins, who was charged with murder. The central dispute in this case was the admissibility of evidence derived from a police interrogation of Collins. Collins applied for an order to exclude the evidence obtained from this interrogation, arguing that the questioning continued despite his expressed unwillingness to answer questions. The matter was heard in the higher courts of Australia, which were tasked with determining whether the discretion exercised by the lower courts in admitting this evidence was appropriate.

The court was required to decide whether the lower court correctly exercised its discretion under the relevant statutory provisions in admitting the evidence obtained from the police interrogation. The primary legal issue was whether the police interrogation was conducted in a manner that violated Collins' rights, and if so, whether this warranted the exclusion of the evidence obtained. The court had to consider whether the continued questioning by police, despite Collins' expressed unwillingness to answer, constituted a breach of his rights, and if this breach was significant enough to warrant the exclusion of the evidence.

The court found that the police interrogation was conducted in a manner that did not violate Collins' rights, and therefore the lower court's decision to admit the evidence was correct. The court held that while Collins expressed his unwillingness to answer questions, there was no evidence that the police coerced or threatened him to obtain the information. The court emphasised that the discretion to admit or exclude evidence must be exercised with regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings and the rights of the accused, but also with a recognition of the need for the police to effectively investigate crimes. The court concluded that the lower court had appropriately balanced these considerations in admitting the evidence, and therefore upheld the decision.

The court's decision was that the application by Collins to exclude the evidence from the police interrogation was dismissed. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted, and no grounds existed for its exclusion under the relevant statutory provisions. This decision affirmed the lower court's exercise of discretion in admitting the evidence and upheld the procedural fairness of the trial.

Orders