R v Dunn - [2018] SADC 77

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v DUNN
[2018] SADC 77
Ruling of Her Honour Judge Chapman
16 July 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Application by accused to exclude evidence obtained by police from a search of his vehicle - Police found methylamphetamine under the driver's seat - whether the evidence of the police officer regarding the basis for his suspicion to search the vehicle should be rejected - whether, in the alternative, the suspicion to search the vehicle was reasonable.
Held: The evidence of the police officer who conducted the search was credible - there was a reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle - the search was lawful - application dismissed.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 52(9), referred to.
R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432, considered.

R v DUNN
[2018] SADC 77

The accused is charged with committing an offence of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. The charge concerns 13.8g of mixed methylamphetamine found by the police in his vehicle on 10 August 2016 at Salisbury Plains.
The accused has made an application pursuant to Rule 49 of the District Court Criminal Rules 2014 for the exclusion of all the evidence obtained as a result of the search of his vehicle. The exclusion is sought on the basis that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle pursuant to s 52(9) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (CS Act). Primarily, the defence seeks to impugn the credibility of the police evidence regarding the alleged basis for the formation of a suspicion. In the alternative, the accused submits that even if the police evidence was accepted on that topic, the suspicion held was not a reasonable one.
The search of the accused’s vehicle
Brevet Sergeant Joel Manson (Manson) conducted the search of the accused’s vehicle. He was in company with two other police officers that evening, namely, Detective Brevet Sergeant Shane Pickering (Pickering) and Senior Constable Daniel Brook (Brook). All three officers gave evidence on the voir dire.
In summary, Manson formed a suspicion to search the accused’s vehicle (a white Commodore) based upon how it was positioned next to another vehicle (a red Commodore) in a car park during the evening when all but one of the shops were closed, as well as the accused’s dishonest answer to a question about his drug history. His suspicion to search the accused’s vehicle was also based on the location of deal bags in the red Commodore and the presence of approximately $2,000 cash in the wallet of the driver of the red Commodore.
Manson’s evidence that one of the grounds for his suspicion was that the accused lied about his drug history was challenged by the accused.
At about 7.35pm, Manson, Pickering and Brook were in a police vehicle on patrol. As they drove past a large car park on the corner of Saints Road and Main North Road at Salisbury Plains,…

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 Dunn

Details

AGLC: R v Dunn [2018] SADC 77
Case: [2018] SADC 77
Decision Date: 16 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dunn, the applicant, Dunn, sought to exclude evidence obtained by the police from a search of his vehicle. The police had discovered methylamphetamine beneath the driver's seat during the search. The central legal issues in this case involved the admissibility of evidence obtained during the search, focusing on the credibility of the police officer's account regarding the basis for their suspicion to search Dunn's vehicle, and whether this suspicion was reasonable enough to justify the search.

The court examined the credibility of the police officer's evidence, which detailed the basis for their suspicion to search Dunn's vehicle. It was crucial for the court to determine if this evidence was reliable and could be accepted in court. Additionally, the court considered whether, independent of the officer's account, there was a reasonable suspicion to justify the search of Dunn's vehicle. The court had to balance the rights of the accused against the need for law enforcement to conduct searches in circumstances where there is a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.

The court found that the evidence provided by the police officer was credible. It established that there was a reasonable suspicion to search Dunn's vehicle, thereby validating the search as lawful. Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence obtained from the search was dismissed. The court concluded that the search was justified under the circumstances, and the evidence obtained was admissible.

Orders