R v Duggan - [2015] QSC 113

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Duggan [2015] QSC 113

PARTIES:

R

(respondent)

v
GLEN BRIAN DUGGAN

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 776 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

590AA Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 April 2015

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

The recording of conversations on 10 April 2013 from the top of page 3 of the Transcript of Police Record of Interview which commenced at 2.25am until the commencement of the formal Record of Interview at 4.48pm be excluded from the evidence at trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for an order that the records of interview in which he made confessional statements should be excluded from the evidence at trial – whether the records of interview should be excluded on the basis that they were unfairly obtained by police – whether the records of interview should be excluded pursuant to public policy considerations

Criminal Code 1899, s 590AA
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 7, s 415, s 418, s 419, s 423, s 431, s 442, Schedule 6
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulations 2012, Schedule 9

R v Adamic (2000) 117 A Crim R 332, cited
R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246, cited
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, followed
R v LR (2006) 1 Qd R 435, cited
R v Martin [2011] QCA 342, cited
R v Read [2005] QDC 403, cited
R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159, followed
R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited

COUNSEL:

C Cassidy for the applicant

D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

ANN LYONS J:

The applicant, Glen Brian Duggan, is charged with the murder of Renee Todd on 10 April 2013 at Kingaroy. At trial, the Crown will be relying on admissions allegedly made by the applicant to police during conversations which commenced at 2.25am on 10 April 2013 and concluded with a formal electronic record of interview which commenced on 10 April 2013 at 4.48pm.
This is an application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 by the applicant for an order that the evidence of all conversations between him and police and between him and his brother between 2.20am and 6.00pm on 10 April 2013 be excluded.
The applicant applies to have those admissions and the records of interview excluded on the basis that the judge has a discretion to exclude them if they were unfairly obtained and pursuant to public policy considerations. The grounds of this application are that police denied the applicant his right to silence, questioned him whilst he was heavily intoxicated and failed to provide him with a support person in circumstances where police had…

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 Duggan

Details

AGLC: R v Duggan [2015] QSC 113
Case: [2015] QSC 113
Decision Date: 5 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Duggan involved the applicant, who had confessed to the murder of his neighbour, seeking an order that the records of the police interviews be excluded from the evidence at trial. The applicant argued that the statements were unfairly obtained due to his intoxicated state and mental health issues, which were known to the police at the time of interrogation. The court was tasked with determining whether the records of interview should be excluded based on the fairness of their procurement and public policy considerations.

The central legal issues were whether the applicant's rights were violated during the interrogation and if the statements should be excluded under the judicial discretion to prevent unfair prejudice. The applicant's argument centred on the lack of warnings about his rights and the continued interrogation despite his clear indications of intoxication and mental health issues. The court had to balance the admissibility of the confession against the principles of fairness and public policy, which discourage the admission of evidence obtained under unfair circumstances.

The court found that the police did not adequately warn the applicant about his rights and continued to question him despite knowing about his intoxicated state and mental health issues. This conduct was deemed to have compromised the fairness of the interview process. The court exercised its discretion to exclude the records of interview from evidence at trial to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to protect the applicant's rights. The court ruled that the exclusion was necessary to prevent unfair prejudice and to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The final order of the court was that the recording of conversations from the top of page 3 of the Transcript of Police Record of Interview, which commenced at 2.25am until the commencement of the formal Record of Interview at 4.48pm, be excluded from the evidence at trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The recording of conversations on 10 April 2013 from the top of page 3 of the Transcript of Police Record of Interview which commenced at 2.25am until the commencement of the formal Record of Interview at 4.48pm be excluded from the evidence at trial.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr Tindall states that around 1.45am on 10 April 2013, he was woken by the applicant knocking on the door. When he opened the door, the applicant was carrying a bottle of alcohol and said something like “I have just murdered someone”, and went on to say that he had murdered “the bitch next door”, saying that he had strangled her. The applicant then rang his brother and Mr Tindall rang police on triple zero. They arrived some 10 minutes later. Mr Tindall spoke to Detective Senior Constable Lawson outside the unit before Constable Lawson entered the unit to speak to the applicant.Constable Lawson’s evidence Constable Lawson’s evidence is that he was notified of the job at Gladys Street at 2.19am via police radio. The information he received was that the applicant had killed his neighbour. He arrived at 2.25am accompanied by two other officers. Upon arrival at the applicant’s address, Constable Lawson activated a digital audio recording device. That recording indicates that when Constable Lawson asked Mr Tindall if the applicant had been drinking, Mr Tindall stated that the applicant had been drinking and was “blind”. The applicant argues that despite that information, Constable Lawson entered the house and questioned him without warning him of his rights. He also questioned him without attempting to clarify his state of intoxication. It would seem from Constable Lawson’s evidence that the applicant immediately responded to police questioning by saying “I just killed someone”. He was asked where it had occurred and he said “next door”. He was asked when it had taken place and he said “three quarters of an hour ago”. The recording indicates that it was not until after that initial series of questions that the police warned the applicant about his right to silence and his right to have a friend or relative present. At that point, the applicant told police the deceased’s name was Renee and he had known her for about four months, that she was dead and that he had killed her. Police asked the applicant to run through everything that had happened. The applicant responded by stating “No. Can I talk to you about another, another day”. Constable Lawson replied “of course you can”, but he then continued on by stating that they needed to find out what happened on the night and continued to question the applicant in detail about the events of the night. He asked how much the applicant had had to drink. The applicant responded by saying “heaps”, and then clarified by indicating it was in fact “shit loads”. Despite the fact the applicant clearly indicated to Constable Lawson that he had consumed a large amount of alcohol, Constable Lawson continued to question him in detail and extracted a statement from the applicant which indicated “I murdered her and killed her about an hour ago”. Sometime later, Constable Lawson asked the applicant if he had consumed any drugs and the applicant responded by saying that he was on anti-depressant drugs. When asked if he suffered from any mental health issues, he said that he suffered from depression and anxiety. Despite that information, Constable Lawson again continued to question the applicant.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Duggan [2015] QSC 113
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v GLEN BRIAN DUGGAN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 776 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	590AA Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 April 2015
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDER:	The recording of conversations on 10 April 2013 from the top of page 3 of the Transcript of Police Record of Interview which commenced at 2.25am until the commencement of the formal Record of Interview at 4.48pm be excluded from the evidence at trial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for an order that the records of interview in which he made confessional statements should be excluded from the evidence at trial – whether the records of interview should be excluded on the basis that they were unfairly obtained by police – whether the records of interview should be excluded pursuant to public policy considerations Criminal Code 1899, s 590AA Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, s 7, s 415, s 418, s 419, s 423, s 431, s 442, Schedule 6 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulations 2012, Schedule 9 R v Adamic (2000) 117 A Crim R 332, cited R v Batchelor [2003] QCA 246, cited R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, followed R v LR (2006) 1 Qd R 435, cited R v Martin [2011] QCA 342, cited R v Read [2005] QDC 403, cited R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159, followed R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited
COUNSEL:	C Cassidy for the applicant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent