Legal Research
Cases
R v Dickinson

R v Dickinson

Case [2004] NSWCCA 457 16 December 2004

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Joseph Brian DICKINSON [2004] NSWCCA 457

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2361

HEARING DATE(S): 16 December 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 16/12/2004

PARTIES:
Regina v Joseph Brian DICKINSON

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Simpson J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/31/0005

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Armitage QC DCJ

COUNSEL:
D Howard SC
H Dhanji

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Appeal allowed and sentence quashed. Respondent sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years and 2 months, to be served as periodic detention.

JUDGMENT:

- 3 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD CJ AT CL
SIMPSON J
BARR J
16 DECEMBER 2004

REGINA v JOSEPH BRIAN DICKINSON

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: I will ask Barr J to deal with the matter.
BARR J: This is an appeal by the Crown against what is said to be the inadequacy of a sentence imposed upon the respondent Joseph Brian Dickinson in the District Court. The respondent was committed for trial on a charge of wounding with intent to murder and on the day of his arraignment, following negotiations that had taken place between the two sides, he pleaded not guilty to that charge but guilty of an offence charged in the alternative, namely malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The Crown accepted his plea in discharge of the indictment.

The offender was in a relationship with a young woman called Amanda Downey. The relationship continued on and off for about four years before it ended in about January 2003. A daughter was born of the relationship. She was about one year ten months of age at the time of the events giving rise to the charge. The offender was very fond of her and had frequent access to her including, it appears, daily access by telephone.

On 15 July 2003 Miss Downey was at home as usual with the child. With them was a young man with whom Miss Downey had become involved, the complainant Thomas Gary Pennell. They had dinner and at about 8pm Miss Downey left the house to purchase alcohol. While she was out of the house the respondent made a number of telephone calls, one by voice message to Miss Downey's mobile telephone asking her whether he could have access to the child on the following day. In another he telephoned the house and Mr Pennell answered in the absence of Miss Downey. He asked to speak to Miss Downey and Mr Pennell told him she was not at home. He said he would telephone later and Mr Pennell asked his name. The respondent did not answer but ended the call. In a third call the offender left a voice message on Miss Downey's mobile phone asking who was at the house with his daughter. He said that she was a slut and that he was going to the house to find…

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 Dickinson

Details

AGLC: R v Dickinson [2004] NSWCCA 457
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 457
Decision Date: 16 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dickinson, the defendant, Dickinson, was charged with an offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) related to the illegal importation of drugs. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during a search conducted without a warrant. The primary issue before the Court was whether the evidence obtained during this warrantless search should be excluded under the common law exclusionary rule, which is derived from the United States case of Wong Sun v United States.

The Court was required to consider the principles that underpin the exclusionary rule, particularly the need to deter police misconduct and to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The central question was whether the evidence obtained during the warrantless search should be excluded given the circumstances under which it was obtained. The Court examined whether the police conduct in conducting the search without a warrant was reasonable and justified under the circumstances. The Court also assessed the impact of the exclusionary rule on the administration of justice and the broader interests of society.

The Court concluded that the evidence obtained during the warrantless search should be admitted. It found that the police conduct was reasonable given the exigent circumstances present at the time of the search, which justified the warrantless entry and search. The Court held that the exclusionary rule should not be applied in this case as it would not serve the interests of justice or deter future misconduct. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing the need to uphold the law with the practical realities faced by law enforcement officers in the field. As a result, the Court allowed the evidence to be considered in the trial, and the case proceeded accordingly.

Orders