R v Cunnington

In the Court of Appeal, Steven Andrew Cunnington appealed against his conviction and sentence for various drug-related offences. The appeal was heard by McMurdo P, Keane and Wilson JJA. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically a statement made by the appellant during his arrest. The appellant argued that the statement was inadmissible as it was obtained through an unlawful arrest.

The court considered the legal principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful arrest. The court found that the arrest was lawful as the police had reasonable grounds to believe that the appellant was committing an indictable offence. The court also noted that the appellant's rights were not infringed as he was informed of the reason for his arrest and his right to silence. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence and upheld the conviction.

The court also considered the appellant's argument that the sentence was excessive. The court noted that the appellant had a lengthy criminal history and that the offences were serious. The court held that the sentence was not excessive and dismissed the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established