R v Daka

Case [2018] SADC 110 7 September 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v DAKA & ORS
[2018] SADC 110
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Slattery
7 September 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - ARREST AND DETENTION - ARREST AND DETENTION FOR QUESTIONING AND INVESTIGATION
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s79A, referred to.
R v Dolan (1992) 58 SASR 501, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - ENTRY
Application under Rule 49 of the District Court Criminal Rules for orders that evidence obtained as a result of a search be excluded. The defendant alleged that:
(1) the police had no reasonable basis upon which they could have formed the necessary suspicion to search; and
(2) the search was unlawful and the evidence obtained thereby should be excluded.
The defendant Kazani sought the exclusion of a statement made by her to a police officer acknowledging the ownership of a pair of runners found in the garage of the home.
Police possessed information that two of the accused, Artur and David Daka, had connections to a person of intense interest, one Alfred Kola, who was involved in a syndicate of 17 persons that was involved in the production and trafficking of large commercial quantities of cannabis in South Australia and to interstate destinations, in money laundering and for committing weapons offences. The police had already made arrests and seizures connected with the operation of this syndicate. The information packages given to the police also had information on other target persons and premises, including the premises of Artur and David Daka, one of whom had a related antecedent drug record and one of whom was a known associate of Alfred Kola.
The holder of the general search warrant decided that based upon the material provided in the information package and also provided at a briefing held on 13 October 2014, he had sufficient information to have a reasonable cause to suspect for s67 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) in relation to the residence occupied by Daka and Daka.
When police attended at the residence and the front door was opened by one of the inhabitants, they smelled a very strong odour of cannabis coming from within the house. The police then executed upon the search warrant and in the house they found 28 kg of cannabis drying in a bedroom as well as other associated paraphernalia connected with the production and trafficking of cannabis both within the same bedroom and within a laundry and adjacent garage. In the house, the police also found a pistol that the police allege is an unregistered firearm and $3000 cash.
The defendants contend that the content of the information package given to the police at the briefing on 13 October 2014 left no room for the exercise of the discretion under s67 of the Summary Offences Act because of its mandatory nature. The defendants further contend that the detection of the cannabis…

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 Daka

Details

AGLC: R v Daka [2018] SADC 110
Case: [2018] SADC 110
Decision Date: 7 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Daka, the defendant, Mr. Daka, was arrested and detained by police for questioning and investigation. The case came before the court to determine the legality of the arrest and detention, specifically focusing on whether the police had the requisite grounds to make the arrest and detain Mr. Daka for questioning. The court had to examine whether the police actions complied with the legal standards governing arrest and detention for questioning and investigation under Australian law.

The primary legal issues that the court addressed were whether the police had reasonable suspicion to arrest Mr. Daka and whether they had lawful grounds to detain him for questioning. These issues required a detailed analysis of the circumstances leading to the arrest, the evidence available to the police at the time, and the statutory provisions that govern arrest and detention in such contexts. The court needed to ensure that the police's actions were in accordance with the legal requirements that protect individual rights while allowing for effective law enforcement.

The court examined the evidence presented by the police, including any observations or information that formed the basis for the arrest. It assessed whether these grounds met the threshold of reasonable suspicion and lawful authority under the relevant statutes. The court concluded that the police had acted within their legal powers, finding that the arrest and detention were justified based on the evidence and circumstances presented. The court held that the police's actions were compliant with the legal standards governing arrest and detention for questioning and investigation.

As a result of this decision, the court upheld the legality of the arrest and detention of Mr. Daka. The defendant's challenge to the arrest and detention was dismissed, and the court found that the police had acted lawfully in making the arrest and detaining Mr. Daka for questioning.

Orders