R v Elfar; R v Golding; R v Sander
[2017] QCA 149
•11 July 2017
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Elfar; R v Golding; R v Sander [2017] QCA 149
PARTIES:
In CA No 214 of 2015:
R
v
ELFAR, Terrance
(appellant)In CA No 215 of 2015:
R
v
GOLDING, Simon Charles
(appellant)In CA No 211 of 2015:
R
v
SANDER, Holger
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 214 of 2015
CA No 215 of 2015
CA No 211 of 2015
SC No 864 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Convictions: 13 August 2015
DELIVERED ON:
11 July 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
13 February 2017
JUDGES:
Gotterson and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
In CA No 214 of 2015:
The appeal by Elfar against conviction be dismissed.
In CA No 215 of 2015:
The appeal by Golding against conviction be dismissed.
In CA No 211 of 2015:
The appeal by Sander against conviction be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – where the Australian Federal Police (AFP) received information from the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that a ship was sailing from South America containing narcotics, and had a planned rendezvous with an Australian vessel, the Mayhem of Eden, at an identified location – where AFP surveillance identified two ships about a quarter of a nautical mile apart near the location identified by the DEA – where the Mayhem of Eden was tracked back to a location at the Scarborough Marina – where two men were observed leaving the vessel, each with a large, heavy duffel bag – where one of the men, Golding, subsequently took the bags into a hire car, which was stopped and searched by the AFP – where the AFP officer cut open the duffel bag and it was found to contain blocks of cocaine – whether the AFP officers suspected, on reasonable grounds, that a thing relevant to an indictable offence was in the car – whether the AFP officers suspected, on reasonable grounds, that it was necessary to exercise the powers under s 3T Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to prevent the drugs from being concealed, lost or destroyed – where the duffel bag was opened in non-compliance with s 3U Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) because it was cut open without giving the persons apparently in charge of the car the opportunity to open it – whether the evidence of the cocaine found within the car should have been excluded
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – where the Mayhem of Eden was searched, and cocaine seized, pursuant to a warrant – where the appellant contended that the evidence of the search and seizure should have been excluded because of events which preceded it – where members of the AFP Operational Response Group (OR Group) were directed to board the Mayhem of Eden, by forced entry, shortly after the car carrying Golding was stopped and searched – whether the OR Group leader held a reasonable suspicion that there were narcotics on the Mayhem of Eden – where Elfar, who had been arrested at Kippa Ring, informed the AFP just prior to the OR Group’s forced entry that he had a key to the vessel but where that circumstance was unknown to the OR Group – whether Elfar was a person ‘apparently in charge’ of the Mayhem of Eden for the purposes of s 203D(2) Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS – STAY OF PROCEEDINGS – ABUSE OF PROCESS – IN GENERAL – where each of the appellants was examined purportedly under the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (the ACC Act) after he had been charged – where the High Court in X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92 held that the ACC Act did not authorise the compulsory examination of a charged person about the subject matter of that charge – where Elfar and Golding submitted that there had been a fundamental alteration of the accusatorial judicial process of a criminal trial by reason of the unauthorised examination – whether the fact of the unauthorised examination resulted in a miscarriage of justice – where Elfar and Golding further submitted that they suffered a specific prejudice because they could not give evidence without running the risk of further prosecution if the evidence diverged from that given during the ACC examination – where neither Elfar nor Golding provided any indication of what exculpatory evidence he might have given at the trial but for the suggested impediment – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred – where Sander further submitted that his right of election to testify in his own defence had not been decided according only to the strength of the evidence presented against him – where Sander adduced evidence of his instructions to his lawyers at trial, which included a statement that he understood that if he gave evidence which was inconsistent with that which he gave before the ACC examination, he could be charged with perjury – where Sander did not provide evidence as to the content of any exculpatory evidence which he could have given at trial – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT – THE LEGISLATURE – LEGISLATION AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS – EXTRATERRITORIAL OPERATION OF LEGISLATION – where the appellant Sander was arrested and his ship was searched and seized beyond the outer edge of the contiguous zone of Australia – where s 184A and s 185 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) provided the authority to board the ship and detain Sander – whether s 51(xxix) of the Constitution requires some nexus or connexion between Australia and the ‘external affairs’ which the law seeks to regulate – whether s 184A and s 185 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) nevertheless satisfied any such requirement in s 51(xxix) if it existed – whether s 184A and s 185 of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) are beyond the legislative power of the Commonwealth under s 51(xxix) of the Constitution
Constitution (Cth), s 51(xxix)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3T, s 3U
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 183UA, s 184A, s 185, s 203B, s 203DBunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, cited
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Zhao (2015) 255 CLR 46; [2015] HCA 5, considered
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; [1990] HCA 26, applied
Hammond v The Commonwealth (1982) 152 CLR 188; [1982] HCA 42, considered
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39, considered
Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20, considered
Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; (2006) 162 A Crim R 301; [2006] HCA 9, applied
Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501; [1991] HCA 32, considered
R v Harper [2015] QCA 273, considered
R v Rondo (2001) 126 A Crim R 562; [2001] NSWCCA 540, cited
R v Seller; R v McCarthy (2015) 89 NSWLR 155; [2015] NSWCCA 76, considered
Victoria v The Commonwealth(Industrial Relations Act Case) (1996) 187 CLR 416; [1996] HCA 56, cited
X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29, considered
X7 v The Queen (2014) 246 A Crim R 402; [2014] NSWCCA 273, applied
XYZ v The Commonwealth (2006) 227 CLR 532; [2006] HCA 25, citedCOUNSEL:
In CA No 214 of 2015 and CA No 215 of 2015:
A Edwards for the appellants
G R Rice QC, with R J Sharp, for the respondentIn CA No 211 of 2015:
M J Copley QC, with E J Longbottom, for the appellant
G R Rice QC, with R J Sharp, for the respondentSOLICITORS:
In CA No 214 of 2015 and CA No 215 of 2015:
Ashkan Tai Lawyers for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondentIn CA No 211 of 2015:
Anderson Fredericks Turner for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by McMurdo JA and with the reasons given by his Honour.
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of McMurdo JA and agree with those reasons and his Honour’s orders to dismiss the appeals against conviction.
McMURDO JA: After a 16 day trial before Atkinson J and a jury each of the appellants, was convicted of an offence of the importation into Australia of a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine, in contravention of s 11.2A(1) and (2) and s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Each was sentenced to a term of 30 years’ imprisonment, but different non-parole periods were fixed: Elfar’s period was 20 years, Golding’s period was 18 years and Sander’s period was 16 years.
Each appeals against his conviction. The grounds of appeal are identical between Elfar and Golding, who have the same counsel. Sander is separately represented and relies upon further grounds to challenge his conviction.
None of the appellants criticises the summing up or argues that the verdict was unreasonable. The verdicts are challenged upon arguments that certain evidence was unlawfully obtained and ought not to have been admitted, that the prosecution did not make proper disclosure and that the indictment ought to have been permanently stayed because, before the trial, the appellants had been compulsorily but unlawfully examined about the relevant events. It is convenient to set out the facts before more precisely describing the grounds of appeal and considering the arguments.
The facts
On 3 August 2010, a boat called the Edelweiss sailed from Panama City, south to the coast of Ecuador, and then west across the Pacific. By 8 October 2010, it was about 320 nautical miles off the Australian east coast.
On 7 October 2010, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) received information that a vessel carrying a large quantity of narcotics was sailing towards Australia in order to meet another vessel, to which it would transfer its cargo at sea. The information was provided by the Drug Enforcement Agency (the DEA), a law enforcement agency of the United States government. The DEA informed the AFP that this rendezvous was expected to occur at a position, defined by certain coordinates, on the evening of 8 October 2010. The DEA subsequently provided an updated expected date and time for the meeting.
On the basis of that information, the AFP, together with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, conducted surveillance flights in the region of the anticipated rendezvous. On the night of 8 October 2010, one of these aircraft identified two vessels approximately two miles apart and sailing towards each other. At about 2.00 am on the morning of 9 October 2010, an aircraft relocated the two vessels, which were then about a quarter of a nautical mile apart and not far from where they had been seen earlier. Digital imagery identified one of the vessels as a sloop with the name Mayhem of Eden (which I will call the Mayhem). From then, the location of the Mayhem was tracked by the AFP and other agencies as it sailed towards the Australian coast until, early on the morning of 12 October 2010, it was observed entering Moreton Bay and mooring off the Scarborough Marina.
On board the Mayhem were the appellants Elfar and Golding. The Mayhem was registered to a company of which Elfar was a director. It had sailed from Port Macquarie in early October 2010, where Elfar had paid for mooring and fuel at the Port Macquarie Marina.
At about 7.40 am on the morning of 12 October 2010, Elfar and Golding were seen by AFP and Customs officers leaving the Mayhem in a tender to go to the marina, where they booked a berth. At about 11.00 am, the Mayhem entered the Scarborough boat harbour and tied up at the berth. Half an hour later, Elfar and Golding were observed as they disembarked. Each was carrying a large, heavy duffel bag. They left the marina by taxi, after placing the two bags in the boot, at 11.45 am.
The taxi took them to the Kippa Ring Village Shopping Centre where they arrived about five minutes later. They walked into the centre with the duffel bags. Just before midday, Golding was seen by officers using a mobile phone and walking towards the exit of the shopping centre, while Elfar was at a table inside the centre with the two bags at his feet. A few minutes later, Golding was again seen using his phone and a few minutes after that, he returned to the table where Elfar was still seated. They were joined by a man called Triplett and another man called Mandas. Triplett, together with Elfar and Golding who were carrying the duffel bags, walked towards the car park of the centre where Golding placed one bag in the back seat of Triplett’s car before sitting in the front passenger seat. The other bag was placed in the boot of the car. Elfar walked back to the shopping centre where, not long afterwards, he was arrested. Golding and Triplett drove away from the shopping centre in the car. It was a Toyota Corolla which had been hired by Triplett.
At about 12.24 pm, the Corolla, carrying Triplett and Golding and the bags, was stopped by the AFP. The two men were arrested and the car was searched without a search warrant.
An AFP officer removed the duffel bag from the boot and cut it open. It was found to contain blocks of cocaine. The car was then moved to a quieter location where it remained under the supervision of an AFP officer, pending the arrival of a search warrant. When the warrant arrived at 5.50 pm, AFP officers began to conduct a thorough examination of the car. But before that search was complete, and before the cabin of the car and the duffel bag on the back seat had been searched, the car was moved to police headquarters. It was not until 15 October that the second duffel bag was removed, searched and found to contain blocks of cocaine.
After cocaine had been found in the bag in the boot of the Corolla, officers from the AFP Operational Response Group (the OR Group) immediately went to the Scarborough Marina to secure the Mayhem. They were able to obtain entry to the marina by permission granted by marina staff. But the Mayhem itself was locked. The OR Group boarded the Mayhem at about 1.00 pm, by a forced entry. The officers walked through the vessel without conducting an actual search or removing any items. A search warrant was not obtained until 7.30 pm on that evening. Shortly after 1.00 pm, just after the initial forced entry of the Mayhem, AFP officers obtained a key to the Mayhem from Elfar at the Kippa Ring Shopping Centre and the key was brought to the marina.
Three AFP officers went on board the Mayhem at about 1.43 pm. They inspected the vessel and saw that there was a cargo of drugs.
When the Mayhem was searched later that day, after the issue of a warrant, drugs were found in two cabins, in packages and bags of the same kind as those which had been taken by Elfar and Golding to Kippa Ring.
The bag in the boot of the Corolla contained 25 kilograms of cocaine and the bag on the car’s back seat was later found to contain 20 kilograms of the drug. From the Mayhem, some 355 blocks of cocaine, having a gross weight of 355.67 kilograms with a total pure weight of cocaine of 251.6 kilograms, were seized.
On 13 October 2010, the Edelweiss was boarded, outside Australia’s territorial waters, by AFP and Customs officers. The appellant Sander and another man called Serna were taken on board the Customs vessel and detained and the Edelweiss was taken in tow. Sander, Serna and the vessel were brought to Australia by Customs and arrived in Brisbane two days later. Upon arrival in Brisbane, Sander refused to be interviewed, but Serna was interviewed and made extensive admissions. The AFP and Customs officers had found on board the Edelweiss Australian food products of a kind which matched those which had been found on the Mayhem.
The appeals by Elfar and Golding
In 2012, Ann Lyons J made rulings under s 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld) about the inadmissibility of a number of items of evidence. At that stage, Serna and Triplett were charged with the present appellants and all five accused applied to exclude certain parts of the evidence. Each of those applications was unsuccessful. At the commencement of the hearing in this Court, counsel for Elfar and Golding sought and was granted leave to amend their notice of appeal so as to pursue only the grounds, as set out in counsel’s outline of submissions, as follows:
“1.The learned Judge [Ann Lyons J] erred in ruling against inadmissibility of the evidence found as a result of the search of the Toyota Corolla on 12 October 2010;
2.The learned Judge erred in ruling against inadmissibility of the evidence found as a result of the searches of the Mayhem of Eden on 12 October 2010 and following and of the Edelweiss on 15 October 2010 and following;
3.The learned Judge erred in not granting either a temporary or permanent stay of the indictment as a result:
…
(ii)of the failure to disclose material relevant to which Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (“ACBPS”) officers (“customs officers”) and Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) agents were involved, and their roles, in the investigation of the appellants, including particularly at the Scarborough marina on 12 October 2010; or
as a result of a combination of those factors.”
But Elfar and Golding also argue that their convictions should be quashed upon the basis of their having been required to give evidence before an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission (the ACC), having been already been charged with this offence. These examinations occurred on 22 October 2010 (Golding) and 28 October 2010 (Elfar). In X7 v Australian Crime Commission,[1] it was held that the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (the ACC Act) did not authorise an examiner to require a person charged with a Commonwealth indictable offence to answer questions about the subject matter of that offence. For Elfar and Golding, it is argued that, irrespective of the strength of the prosecution case, the consequence of those examinations was that there was such a defect in the process of the trial that their convictions resulted from a miscarriage of justice. A related complaint is that the prosecution did not disclose material which was relevant to “the extent to which the content of the ACC hearings had been disseminated” and to a question of “which Customs officers and AFP agents were present at the ACC hearings of each of the appellants”.
[1](2013) 248 CLR 92
Evidence from the car
In a pre-trial ruling, conducted under s 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld), Ann Lyons J was asked to exclude, relevantly for the present appeals, evidence obtained from the search of the Corolla, evidence obtained from the search of the Mayhem and evidence of the items seized during the search of the Edelweiss. Those and other applications[2] occupied five days, resulting in a reserved judgment delivered in December 2012.
[2]A successful application to exclude evidence of information provided by Elfar to an AFP officer and an unsuccessful application to exclude the confession of Serna (then a co-accused).
The evidence obtained from the car was challenged on the basis that there had been no power in the AFP officers to stop the car and no power to cut open the bag in which cocaine was then found. Those arguments called for a consideration of the evidence against the powers and requirements prescribed by s 3T and s 3U of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Section 3T provides as follows:
“(1)This section applies if a constable suspects, on reasonable grounds, that:
(a)a thing relevant to an indictable offence is in or on a conveyance; and
(b)it is necessary to exercise a power under subsection (2) in order to prevent the thing from being concealed, lost or destroyed; and
(c)it is necessary to exercise the power without the authority of a search warrant because the circumstances are serious and urgent.
(2)The constable may:
(a)stop and detain the conveyance; and
(b)search the conveyance and any container in or on the conveyance, for the thing; and
(c)seize the thing if he or she finds it there.
(3)If, in the course of searching for the thing, the constable finds another thing relevant to an indictable offence or a thing relevant to a summary offence, the constable may seize that thing if he or she suspects, on reasonable grounds, that:
(a)it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent its concealment, loss or destruction; and
(b)it is necessary to seize it without the authority of a search warrant because the circumstances are serious and urgent.
(4)The constable must exercise his or her powers subject to section 3U.”
Section 3U provides as follows:
“When a constable exercises a power under section 3T in relation to a conveyance, he or she:
(a)may use such assistance as is necessary; and
(b)must search the conveyance in a public place or in some other place to which members of the public have ready access; and
(c)must not detain the conveyance for longer than is necessary and reasonable to search it and any container found in or on the conveyance; and
(d)may use such force as is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, but must not damage the conveyance or any container found in or on the conveyance by forcing open a part of the conveyance or container unless:
(i)the person (if any) apparently in charge of the conveyance has been given a reasonable opportunity to open that part or container; or
(ii)it is not possible to give that person such an opportunity.”
Section 3T(1) provides that the section applies if a constable, on reasonable grounds, suspects three things. The first is that “a thing relevant to an indictable offence is in or on a conveyance”. In the present case, plainly there was a suspicion that narcotics were in the car. But in this Court, it is argued for Elfar and Golding that the suspicion lacked reasonable grounds. However at the pre-trial hearing, the actions of the AFP were not challenged upon that basis. That contention was not put to any relevant witness. It was not put to a Ms Barrett, an officer of the AFP, who was one of the police officers involved in the location of the drugs in the bag in the boot of the vehicle. Ms Barrett was the person who, using a knife, cut open the bag to reveal the drugs. Nor was that case put to the officer in charge of the group which stopped the car, Mr Watt, when he had given evidence at the committal hearing. That evidence was included within the evidence for the hearing under s 590AA. More generally, at the committal, the validity of the actions in stopping the car and locating the drugs were not challenged on the basis that there was no reasonable ground for suspecting that drugs were within the car.
In this Court, it was not said that the appellants were precluded from making the argument now. But the absence of the argument at the hearing under s 590AA, when the Court was asked to rule upon this evidence, explains why Ann Lyons J did not discuss it. Mr Edwards, who now appears for Elfar and Golding, submits that the matter had been argued before her Honour. He says that this appeared from something said by counsel then appearing for his clients which appears in the appeal record at pages 300 and 301. It is unnecessary to set out those passages from the record of the addresses of the pre-trial hearing. It is sufficient to say that Mr Rice QC, who did appear at that hearing, is correct in saying that this was not an argument which was then made. What was there said was relevant to the distinct argument, which is repeated here, that there was no reasonable ground for a suspicion that it was necessary to exercise a power under s 3T(2) without the authority of a search warrant because the circumstances were serious and urgent.
Indisputably, the relevant police officers, Mr Watt in particular, suspected that there were narcotics in the car. Under surveillance, Elfar and Golding had sailed the Mayhem into Scarborough harbour and almost immediately left the boat to go to the shopping centre, carrying the two bags. Again under surveillance, they had been seen to meet another two men and the bags had been seen to be placed in the vehicle before it was driven away. The present argument is that it cannot have been reasonably suspected that the bags contained drugs, because it could not have been reasonably suspected that the Mayhem had drugs on board as it arrived at Scarborough.
In George v Rockett,[3] the High Court discussed the state of mind which is a suspicion, as distinct from a belief. The Court there said:[4]
“Suspicion, as Lord Devlin said in Hussien v. Chong Fook Kam, ‘in its ordinary meaning is a state of conjecture or surmise where proof is lacking: “I suspect but I cannot prove.”’ The facts which can reasonably ground a suspicion may be quite insufficient reasonably to ground a belief, yet some factual basis for the suspicion must be shown. In Queensland Bacon Pty. Ltd. v. Rees, a question was raised as to whether a payee had reason to suspect that the payer, a debtor, ‘was unable to pay [its] debts as they became due’ as that phrase was used in s. 95(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1924 (Cth). Kitto J. said:
‘A suspicion that something exists is more than a mere idle wondering whether it exists or not; it is a positive feeling of actual apprehension or mistrust, amounting to “a slight opinion, but without sufficient evidence”, as Chambers’s Dictionary expresses it. Consequently, a reason to suspect that a fact exists is more than a reason to consider or look into the possibility of its existence. The notion which “reason to suspect” expresses in sub-s. (4) is, I think, of something which in all the circumstances would create in the mind of a reasonable person in the position of the payee an actual apprehension or fear that the situation of the payer is in actual fact that which the subsection describes – a mistrust of the payer’s ability to pay his debts as they become due and of the effect which acceptance of the payment would have as between the payee and the other creditors.’”
(footnotes omitted)
As to what is meant by “reasonable grounds” for a state of mind, in the same judgment the High Court said that what is required is “the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person”.[5]
[3](1990) 170 CLR 104.
[4]Ibid at 115-116.
[5]Ibid at 112.
At the committal, Mr Watt gave oral evidence and a five page written statement by him was tendered. He was asked by counsel for Elfar whether at the time that the drugs were found in the car, he suspected that “the items or some of them [in the car] may have contained border controlled drugs?” to which he answered “yes”. He was not asked any question about the basis for that suspicion except that, at one point, he was asked whether it was derived from the discovery of drugs on board the Mayhem.[6] He answered that he had derived his suspicion “from the bags that were in the car”.[7] When cross-examined by the solicitor then appearing for Golding, Mr Watt was asked to explain his authority to search the vehicle and he answered “section 3T of the Crimes Act”. He was asked to give his understanding of that section to which he said:
“Well… – if I had the suspicion that there were evidential items on board that conveyance – had already been involved in the commission of an indictable offence, then I’m able to stop and search that vehicle.”[8]
That cross-examination continued as follows:
“Are you also aware, however, that it is actually a three stage test in relation to the fact that there has to be also the involvement of possibly the destruction or concealment of evidence if that search did not get conducted there and then? -- Or the stopping of the car, correct.
Sorry? -- Or the stopping of the car.
Or the stopping of the car. But did you understand that you need to be satisfied prior to conducting the search that that evidence is going to be concealed or destroyed? -- Yes.
Okay. And you'd come to that conclusion, had you? -- I’d come to the conclusion - I was concerned that if we didn’t stop that car at that time, because we didn’t know where it was going, or both cars to be honest, that we may lose control of it and there may be a loss or destruction of evidence.”[9]
[6]Supplementary Appeal Record (SAR) 1535.
[7]Ibid.
[8]SAR 1550.
[9]Ibid ll26-52.
Mr Watt had been in the vicinity of the Scarborough Marina from about 4 am on 12 October 2010. He had travelled there with other officers of the AFP to assist with this investigation. At the time he left the vicinity of the marina and travelled with other officers to Kippa Ring, which was at about 12.20 pm on that day, neither the Mayhem nor the Edelweiss had been boarded by police or customs officers. The suspicion that the car contained drugs came from the movements of Elfar and Golding at the time that they left the Mayhem, together with their suspicion that the Mayhem had arrived with drugs on board.
This whole exercise of surveillance and detection had resulted from the information which had been provided by the DEA, as I have discussed.
It is argued for Elfar and Golding that the information from the DEA was insufficient to found a reasonable suspicion. It is said that the information was “hearsay intelligence” which suggested only a possibility of drugs being on board the Mayhem, rather than providing reasonable grounds for a suspicion.[10] Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Smart JA in R v Rondo,[11] where it was said that “[a] reasonable suspicion involves less than a reasonable belief but more than a possibility. There must be something which would create in the mind of a reasonable person an apprehension or fear of one of the state of affairs covered by [the relevant provision]”.
[10]Written Submissions for Elfar and Golding, paragraph 15.
[11](2001) 126 A Crim R 562 at [53].
There was no direct evidence of the communication of information from the DEA to the Australian agencies. The progress of the provision of this information was evidenced and supported by two documents, each dated 13 October 2010. One was an email from an AFP officer named Perkins to Mr Saunders, the commander of the Australian Customs vessel (the Ocean Protector) which intercepted the Edelweiss. The second document was from another Customs officer, Mr Christensen, also dated 13 October 2010 and also addressed to Mr Saunders.
The email from Mr Perkins began with this statement as to the “background”:
“On 7 October 2010, information was received from the United States Enforcement Agency (DEA) that indicated a large vessel suspected of containing a quantity of narcotics may be en route from Ecuador to the Australian east coast. It was estimated by the DEA that if the vessel continued in its westerly direction, it could reach the Australian east coast sometime around 6:00pm Australian Eastern Daylight time on 8 October 2010.”
In the document written by Mr Christensen, under the heading “Initial Information Received from AFP”, this was said:
“On Thursday 7 October 2010, AFP received information from foreign law enforcement counterparts that a vessel had departed a South American country approximately two months previously. This vessel (“the suspected mothership”) was believed to be carrying a large quantity of narcotics, and planned to meet another vessel (“the suspected daughter vessel”) at sea in approximate position 2842S 15818E on the evening of Friday 8 October 2010.”
It is now argued that the information from the DEA included the fact that it was unknown whether this “large vessel” was to sail to the Australian coast or was instead to rendezvous with another vessel. However, it appears that Mr Christensen’s document referred to later information from the DEA, by which time the Australian agencies were being told that there would be a rendezvous as Mr Christensen’s document described. The initial and more general information from the DEA had been superseded by more precise information.
It is argued for the appellants that the information was unreliable for the fact that it had referred to a “large vessel” whereas the Edelweiss was about 12 metres in length. Again, that submission is inspired by what is described in Perkins’s email and not in the more detailed record of Mr Christensen’s document. It is also argued that the information had less weight for the fact that it said that the vessel would be “on route from Ecuador”, whereas the Edelweiss had sailed from Panama. That submission is unpersuasive, because the Edelweiss did sail from Ecuador via Panama. In any event, the relevant question is what was reasonable to suspect on the information then available, and a later discovery that this information had been incorrect in some respect would not have been relevant.
The argument for the appellants points out that there was no radar or surveillance of an actual meeting between the two vessels. But what was also known was the information provided by a Mr Sheffield, who was the navigator on board a surveillance aircraft and who recorded the position of the Mayhem relative to the other vessel. He was in real-time communication with Customs officers stationed in Canberra and, at the time, he sent a number of images which he had taken to record the positions of the vessels. The vessel subsequently identified as the Mayhem was not only very close to the other vessel but they maintained the same relative positions for some time.
But the fact that the information had been provided by this source, a leading drug law enforcement agency, was relevant to the weight which is to be given to it. It was detailed, progressively supplied information as to the timing and precise location of the rendezvous of the vessels. That information was then supported by two vessels, the Mayhem included, being found at a time and at a location which was consistent with the most recent information from the DEA. After the vessels had apparently met, the Mayhem immediately sailed back to Australia. Elfar and Golding were then seen leaving the Mayhem, within an hour of berthing, carrying large heavy bags.
In these circumstances, a reasonable person could at least suspect that the bags within the vehicle contained drugs which had been illegally imported. The requirement of s 3T(1)(a) was satisfied.
The next question was whether Mr Watt had a reasonable suspicion that it was necessary to exercise the powers under s 3T(2) “in order to prevent the [drugs] from being concealed, lost or destroyed.”[12] The question here is not whether it was, in fact, necessary to exercise those powers. Rather, it is whether the relevant officer reasonably suspected that it was necessary to do so.
[12]Section 3T(1)(b).
In her judgment, Ann Lyons J recorded the argument by defence counsel that the evidence obtained during the search of the car should be excluded because there was “no basis for an emergent search of the vehicle as there was no reason to believe that anything in the car would be concealed, lost or destroyed once it was stopped”. Although the car had later been searched under the authority of a warrant, it was argued that the results of that later search should also be excluded, because the warrant had been obtained upon a suspicion that was derived from what had been found, unlawfully, in the boot of the car when it was stopped.
Her Honour referred to evidence from Mr Watt and another AFP officer, Ms Cressy, that in their view the circumstances were “serious and urgent”. Her Honour summarised their evidence as follows:
“They stated that they intercepted and searched the car and the boot of the car without a warrant because they knew the vehicle was being driven away from the shopping centre to a place unknown and that it contained bags brought from the vessel which had been the subject of surveillance from Customs and foreign law enforcement agencies. Their evidence was that there was a concern about losing track of the vehicle and with loss of the evidential material.”
Her Honour then reasoned as follows:
“[40] It would seem clear that until Triplett arrived at 12.13 pm at the shopping centre in the Corolla they had no idea of his role and a new element was inserted into the circumstances they were aware of. The car was then driven away from the shopping centre at around 12.17 pm. I accept that there was a real concern the car would be driven away and get lost in the traffic. The AFP were concerned that they would lose contact with both the car and the passengers. Until that point in time the AFP were not aware of Triplett or the role he played. Furthermore and in my view significantly, they had no idea what Triplett planned to do with the duffle bags and their contents.
[41]I consider that there were, in all of the circumstances, reasonable grounds for a suspicion that illegal drugs were in the duffle bags in the Corolla and that it was necessary to stop, detain and search the vehicle in order to prevent the car being driven away such that the drugs could be concealed, lost or destroyed. I am also satisfied that the circumstances were both serious and urgent. I consider there was a very real concern that there were significant quantities of drugs in an unknown car being driven by an unknown driver and it could simply disappear. On the evidence before me, it would seem that the AFP officers had no idea Triplett or a car was involved until the Corolla pulled up and the bags were loaded into it. I consider that there was no time to obtain a search warrant to search the car in the four minute period between Triplett’s arrival on the scene and the time he started to drive away.
[42]The fact that police stopped and waited for a search warrant to arrive after the initial cursory search was completed does not in any way invalidate their authority to search the vehicle when it was initially stopped. I accept that both occupants of the vehicle were placed in police custody and handcuffed after the vehicle was stopped.
[43]In my view it is clear that the police had possession of the vehicle and had conducted a preliminary search to ascertain if there were reasons to obtain a search warrant. It was obviously concluded that a search warrant should be obtained. I do not consider, however, that the initial search was unlawful.”[13]
[13]Appeal Record (AR) 465.
Counsel for Elfar and Golding submitted that it was unnecessary to exercise any of the powers under s 3T(2), particularly the power to stop the car. It is said that there was no real risk that the car might have been lost as it was followed by the AFP officers. In effect, it is said that the AFP officers should have continued to follow the car until a warrant was obtained.
Counsel went further, submitting that the AFP officers, most particularly Mr Watt, made a calculated decision to not seek a warrant because “they realised that, upon an application for a warrant to a magistrate, they were unlikely to be successful.”[14] As I have said, Mr Watt did not give evidence at the s 590AA hearing, but his evidence at the committal was before her Honour and he was not there challenged with the theory which counsel now advances. As I have explained, there was a reasonable suspicion held by Mr Watt that the drugs were in the car. Once that is accepted, there was clearly a risk that the drugs could have been “concealed, lost or destroyed” by the police officers losing track of the car. There was, at the least, a reasonable ground for a suspicion by Mr Watt that it was necessary to exercise the power to stop and detain the car, and to search the car for the drugs.
[14]Transcript of the appeal hearing, Monday 13 February 2017, T1-19.
The remaining argument about the evidence from that search is that there was a failure to duly exercise the power of search, having regard to the requirements of s 3T. The bag which was in the boot was cut open by Ms Barrett without giving an opportunity to the person or persons apparently in charge of the car to open the bag. Those persons were Golding and Triplett, each of whom was then handcuffed and sitting on the side of the road. As the prosecution agrees, they could have been given an opportunity to open the bag, and therefore, the bag was opened in non-compliance with s 3U.
But it did not follow that this non-compliance required the evidence of what was found in the bag to be excluded. Ann Lyons J concluded that there was a clear non-compliance, but that, having regard to the probative value of the evidence, it should not be excluded in the exercise of what can be described as a Bunning v Cross[15] discretion. Her Honour described the non-compliance as follows:
“In the overall circumstances of this case I do not consider that the failure by officers to first ask Triplett to open the bag before they cut it open was a grave breach. It is best characterised as clumsy and was probably an innocent oversight … There is no indication that by opening the bag in the way they did that the evidential value of the bag was compromised.”
[15]Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54.
In this Court, counsel for Elfar and Golding accepts that the non-compliance with s 3U, of itself, could not have warranted the exclusion of the evidence. Rather, this non-compliance is relied upon, in combination with the suggested absence of power to stop and search the vehicle, as justifying the exclusion of the evidence. It is conceded, both in the written and oral submissions of counsel for the appellants, that if the vehicle was lawfully stopped and searched, this non-compliance with s 3U alone could not have justified the exclusion of the evidence.
For these reasons, Ann Lyons J was correct to refuse the application to exclude the evidence of the search of the vehicle and of the drugs then found.
Search of the Mayhem
A search for and seizure of drugs took place on the Mayhem after 8.00 pm on 12 October 2010. That search and seizure was authorised by a warrant under the Crimes Act. It is argued that the evidence of that search and seizure should have been excluded because of events which preceded it.
The first of those events was the seizure of drugs from the car. Upon the premise that the search of and seizure from the car was unlawful, it is argued that the warrant which was obtained for the Mayhem was wrongly obtained, because it was obtained on evidence from that search. But because, as I have concluded, the search of the car was lawful, this ground for the exclusion of the evidence of the search of the Mayhem must be rejected.
Another event which is said to have tainted the evidence of the search of the Mayhem was the entry of the vessel, at about 1.00 pm on 12 October 2010, by the OR Group. It is argued that the entry by the OR Group was unlawful. Further, there were the three AFP officers who were on board the Mayhem after it had been secured by the OR Group and before the warrant was obtained. It is argued that their entry was unlawful.
Elfar was arrested at the Kippa Ring Shopping Centre at about 12.38 pm on that day. He was detained there until investigators arrived. At about the same time, the car carrying Golding and Triplett was stopped and searched. Shortly after that, the OR Group members, who were then at the Brisbane Airport, were directed to go to the Scarborough Marina. They arrived there at about 1.00 pm and were directed to board the Mayhem by Detective Superintendent Baker, who was controlling the investigation remotely from Port Macquarie. Just a few minutes later, AFP officers who were speaking with Elfar were told by him that he was carrying a key for the Mayhem. That was unknown to Detective Superintendent Baker or any of the OR Group before the group went on board.
One of the officers in the OR Group, Mr Evans, described what occurred in his evidence in the s 590AA hearing. He said that the group’s purpose was to secure the vessel in the circumstance that at that stage, according to some reports, more than two people had been on the Mayhem. He said that the group was “to secure the vessel as quickly as possible to prevent the loss and destruction of evidence and to also apprehend any further offenders [who] may have been on the vessel”.[16] In cross-examination, Mr Evans referred to his diary in which he had noted the possibility that there could have been up to three persons originally on board the vessel[17] and he referred to the further circumstance that the vessel was in a public area, so that the “rapid containment of the vessel” was necessary to ensure the safety of the public.[18]
[16]AR 166.
[17]AR 185.
[18]AR 186.
The OR Group had completed its task by about 1.43 pm. They handed over responsibility for the vessel to the three AFP officers, who were Federal Agents McGilvray, Mazlin and Begbie. They inspected the vessel with the leader of the OR Group, Mr Irving. When cross-examined at the committal, Mr McGilvray said that he was shown by Mr Irving items which he had seen inside the vessel.[19] In her pre-trial ruling, Ann Lyons J said that agents McGilvray, Begbie and Mazlin boarded the Mayhem and made “a brief visual inspection”. But, according to the evidence of each of these agents, nothing was touched or seized until the search was undertaken pursuant to the warrant.
[19]SAR 835.
For Elfar and Golding, it is argued that neither the OR Group nor this other group of officers was entitled to board the Mayhem. The respondent argues, as Ann Lyons J held, that the entry of the vessel was authorised by s 203B of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) which provides as follows:
“203BSeizure without warrant of special forfeited goods, or of evidentiary material relating to special forfeited goods at a Customs place
(1)This section applies in 2 circumstances, namely:
(a) in a circumstance where an authorised person suspects on reasonable grounds that there are special forfeited goods:
(i)at, or in a container (other than a designated container in the immediate physical possession of a person to whom subparagraph (b)(i) applies) at, a Customs place; or
(ii)in, on, or in a container (other than a designated container in the immediate physical possession of a person to whom subparagraph (b)(i) applies) on, a conveyance at a Customs place; or
(b) in a circumstance where a person:
(i)is at a Customs place that is also a designated place; and
(ii)has a designated container, or has goods reasonably suspected by an authorised person to be special forfeited goods, in his or her immediate physical possession; but
(iii)is not carrying that container or those goods on his or her body.
Note 1:Container and designated container have special definitions for the purposes only of this Division.
Note 2:The baggage of a passenger entering or leaving Australia or of the captain or crew of a vessel or aircraft so entering or leaving is not a designated container.
Note 3:To determine the question whether a person is carrying a designated container, or goods reasonably suspected of being special forfeited goods, on his or her body, see subsection 4(19).
(2)In the circumstances referred to in paragraph 1(a), the authorised person may, without warrant:
(a) search the Customs place, or the container at that place, for special forfeited goods; or
(b) stop and detain at the Customs place the conveyance and search it and any container on it for special forfeited goods;
as the case requires and seize any goods that the authorised person reasonably suspects are special forfeited goods if the authorised person finds them there.
(2A)In the circumstance referred to in paragraph (1)(b), an authorised person who is an officer of Customs may, without warrant:
(a) search any designated container in the immediate physical possession of the person to whom that paragraph applies; and
(b) seize any goods reasonably suspected by the authorised person of being special forfeited goods (whether or not those goods are found as a result of such a search).
(2B)An authorised person must not exercise the powers referred to in subsection (2A) unless the person having immediate physical possession of the container to be searched is present at the time when the container is searched.
(2C)For the avoidance of doubt, the power of the authorised person under subsection (2) to seize, without warrant, goods found as a result of a search of, or at, a Customs place that are reasonably suspected of being special forfeited goods includes the power to seize, without warrant, any goods that:
(a) have been produced as a result of a frisk search of a person; or
(b) have been discovered on the body of a person as a result of an external search or an internal search of the person;
if the search is conducted under Division 1B at the Customs place and the goods are reasonably so suspected.
(3)If, in the course of searching under subsection (2) or (2A) for special forfeited goods, an authorised person finds a thing that the authorised person believes on reasonable grounds is evidential material relating to an offence committed in respect of those special forfeited goods, the authorised person may, without warrant, seize that thing whether or not the authorised person has found any such special forfeited goods.
(4)For the purposes of a search conducted under subsection (2) or (2A), the authorised person may question any person apparently in charge of the place, conveyance or container about any goods or thing at the place, in or on the conveyance, or in the container.
(5)The authorised person must exercise his or her powers subject to section 203D.”
The term “Customs place” is defined by s 183UA of the Customs Act to include “a port … or wharf that is appointed, and the limits of which are fixed, under section 15”. Ann Lyons J concluded, by reference to evidence which need not be discussed here, that the Scarborough Marina was a “Customs place” and there is no challenge to that conclusion.
Her Honour was also satisfied, as the appellants’ argument now accepts, that narcotics are “special forfeited goods” for the purposes of s 203B. And the Mayhem was a “conveyance” which was defined by s 183UA to include a “vessel of any kind”.
Under s 203B(2), an authorised person[20] was permitted to search the vessel and any container on it for special forfeited goods and, as the case required, to seize any goods reasonably suspected to be special forfeited goods if found there, in the circumstances referred to in s 203B(1)(a). Ann Lyons J held, and the respondent argues here, that there was such a circumstance in that an authorised person suspected on reasonable grounds that there were narcotics on the conveyance (the Mayhem).
[20]Defined by s 183UA to include an officer of police.
As her Honour discussed, Detective Superintendent Baker understood that he was exercising a power under s 203C, rather than under s 203B, in instructing the OR Group to go on board. Section 203C was, in relevant respects, in the same terms as s 203B except that it applied in circumstances where the relevant place or the relevant container was in a place other than a Customs place. Because the Scarborough Marina was a Customs place, it was s 203B which was the source of the relevant power. But the suspicion which Superintendent Baker held for the purposes of s 203C was a sufficient suspicion under s 203B, namely it was a suspicion that there were narcotics on the Mayhem. That was a reasonably held suspicion, not only because of what was known prior to the search of the car, but also from what was found in the car. It is not to the point that Detective Superintendent Baker believed that prior to the discovery of drugs in the car, there was not a sufficient basis for the search of the Mayhem without a warrant.[21] At the relevant time, he held the requisite suspicion and, on an objective view, that was a reasonable suspicion. I agree with the reasoning of Ann Lyons J that there was a reasonable ground for that suspicion from what was known before the car was intercepted, for the same reasons that there was a reasonable ground for a suspicion that drugs were in the car.
[21]AR 98.
Under s 203B, an authorised person was entitled, without warrant, to search the Mayhem for drugs and to seize anything suspected of being drugs, without it being necessary to exercise that power in order to prevent the drugs from being concealed, lost or destroyed. It follows that the OR Group and subsequently the three AFP officers were entitled to go on board and indeed to search for drugs, without a warrant.
Section 203D(2) provides:
“An authorised person exercising powers under section 203B, 203C, 203CA or 203CB may use such force as is necessary and reasonable in the circumstances, but must not:
(a)forcibly remove any container or other goods from a person’s physical possession; or
(b)damage any place, conveyance, container or other goods of which the person is apparently in charge;
unless:
(c)the person has been given a reasonable opportunity to facilitate the exercise of the powers by providing access to the place, conveyance, container or goods or by opening the conveyance or container; or
(d)it is not possible to give that person such an opportunity.”
The OR Group damaged the vessel by smashing some glass to gain entry. It is argued that this was prohibited by paragraph 2(b) and there existed neither of the circumstances referred to in paragraph 2(c) and (d). More specifically, it is submitted that Elfar was the person “apparently in charge” of the vessel and he had not been given the opportunity to facilitate the provision of access to it. As I have discussed, Elfar told AFP officers that he had a key for the vessel just minutes after the OR Group forcibly entered it. Ann Lyons J held there were circumstances of urgency, which precluded the provision of that opportunity and which required the vessel to be forcibly entered. Her Honour referred to the need to secure the drugs to ensure they were not lost or destroyed, noting that they could have been tipped overboard had another offender been on the vessel. There was no error in that reasoning. Further, the premise for the appellants’ argument, namely that Elfar was “the person … apparently in charge” of the Mayhem, is not established. At this time Elfar was in Kippa Ring. He was not in physical possession of the vessel and therefore he was not a person who could have fallen within paragraph (2)(a). “The person … apparently in charge”, as referred to in paragraph (2)(b), is an apparent reference to the same person described in paragraph (2)(a). That is inconsistent with the notion, implicit in the appellants’ argument, that a person could be apparently in charge of a vessel when, by being somewhere else, is unable to provide access to the vessel at the point when the authorised person wishes to search it.
Therefore, what the AFP did on the Mayhem, prior to the search under the warrant, was not unlawful.
For these reasons, there was no basis to exclude the evidence of what was found on board the Mayhem under the search pursuant to the warrant.
Complaints about disclosure
It is argued that AFP officers deliberately attempted to hide aspects of the searches of the car and the Mayhem, and that these attempts justify the quashing of the convictions and a stay of the prosecution “pending full disclosure, a voir dire and … informed argument as to the admissibility of the evidence from the search of the Mayhem of Eden”.[22] The argument suggests five ways in which there was this conduct of concealment by the AFP.
[22]Written Submissions for Elfar and Golding, paragraph 67.
Firstly, it is said that there was a concealment by the officers involved in the interception of the car by not mentioning in their witness statements that the bag taken from the boot had been cut open in non-compliance with s 3U(d) of the Crimes Act. But that fact was not concealed: indeed it was video recorded by Mr Watt and the recording was tendered and played at the committal hearing. Relevant witnesses were cross-examined about the cutting of the bag and it was upon the basis of that evidence that Ann Lyons J was able to rule, correctly, that there was a non-compliance with s 3U.
Secondly, there was a suggested failure by AFP officers to mention that Elfar, having been arrested, had been taken to the Scarborough Marina where the key to the vessel was provided to AFP officers there. It is said this was a deliberate attempt to disguise a non-compliance with s 203D of the Customs Act. Again, the facts do not suggest any deliberate concealment of the truth. Detective Superintendent Baker had ordered the OR Group to enter the vessel and they had done so because of a perceived circumstance of urgency, both in securing public safety and in securing potential evidence. As I have explained, their actions were lawful and there was no need for the AFP officers to withhold the information that, subsequently, there was a key with Elfar when he was brought back to the marina.
Thirdly, it is said that there was a failure by the AFP officers, agents McGilvray, Mazlin and Begbie, to mention in their witness statements that they had boarded the Mayhem ahead of the issue of the search warrant. As I have concluded, their boarding of the vessel was also lawful according to s 203B. Nothing was then seized and their boarding was not productive of any evidence which could have further strengthened the prosecution case. Nor could the fact of that boarding have damaged the case. The appellants’ argument is that these officers were alert to the prospect of criticism of their conduct and for that reason they sought to conceal it. At least once it is seen that their conduct was lawful, this submission is unpersuasive.
Fourthly, it is argued that the AFP acted improperly by not obtaining CCTV footage of events at the marina. Mr Mazlin gave evidence at the committal that police had requested that all CCTV footage of the marina be kept, but that, subsequently, police had obtained only some of the footage. But what was obtained was that which was considered relevant, namely footage of the movements of Elfar and Golding leaving the marina on their way to Kippa Ring and footage of a police search of a bin where one of the appellants had then thrown some items. There was no footage available which showed the vessel berth. Consequently, there was no footage available which would have shown the entry of the Mayhem by AFP officers. This argument appears to be inspired by evidence given at the trial, by an employee of the marina, that when she left work at 5.00 pm “there were a lot of agents coming and going, removing the stuff from the boat”.[23] She said that this conduct by the agents may have commenced at around 2.00 pm.[24] But as the appellants’ written submissions properly concede, the witness said that this had occurred on the same day as the marina manager had signed some AFP documents, which other evidence showed were signed on 13 October, the day after the events in question.
[23]AR 1279.
[24]AR 1282.
Fifthly, there was an alleged failure to disclose video footage taken by the AFP itself. This was footage of some of the search which was conducted under the warrant. Its existence emerged during an earlier trial of the appellants on these charges. It should have been disclosed. The non-disclosure was explained (although not excused) by the fact that it was not footage taken by any investigating police officer; instead, it was taken by a civilian employed by the AFP for the purpose of providing footage to the media. At this trial, the film was tendered in the Crown case. And there is no suggestion that in some way it may have assisted the defence case.
None of these allegations of non-disclosure provides any basis for the convictions to be quashed.
Ground 3 of the appeal
According to this ground of the appeals by Elfar and Golding, the indictment ought to have been stayed, either permanently or temporarily, because of an alleged failure to disclose material which was relevant to the identification of the Customs officers and AFP officers who were involved in the investigation of the appellants, particularly at the Scarborough Marina on 12 October 2010, and all material evidencing the respective roles of those persons.
This ground of appeal complains of an error by Ann Lyons J in not granting a stay upon this basis. But neither Elfar nor Golding asked her Honour to do so. They applied for a stay upon other bases. The relevant judgments were those given by her Honour on 18 September 2013 and 11 September 2014, from which it can be seen that a stay was sought upon the different basis (discussed below) of the unlawful examination of the defendants by the ACC.
It is argued that it emerged only during the subject trial that there were more than 10 Customs officers present at the marina on 12 October 2010. Until then, it is said, the presence of Customs officers had not been disclosed. It is argued that having regard to the importance to the defence case of the legality of the search of the Mayhem, witness statements of all who had been present should have been obtained and provided. The argument asserts that “given the obvious attempts at hiding what in fact occurred” (an apparent reference to the five contentions discussed above at paragraphs [67] to [71]) “their evidence was integral and was buried”.[25] It is argued that absent disclosure of who was present throughout the day, “the defence were left merely to speculate as to what really occurred at the Mayhem prior to the arrival of the warrant [that] night and as to how that might have affected the legality of the search, there being only the unreliable evidence of AFP officers who had attempted to cover up other potential wrongdoing”[26].
[25]Written Submissions for Elfar and Golding, paragraph 61.
[26]Ibid, paragraph 66.
On the night of the first day of the trial, a television news report, broadcast in an area relevant for this jury, referred to the fact that the appellant had been remanded in custody for almost five years and that his co-accused were on bail. The footage showed the appellant in prison clothing and it showed the co-accused walking out of court. On the morning of the third day of the trial, Sander’s counsel applied for the jury to be discharged upon the basis that this report had prejudiced Sander, because any juror who had seen the program was likely to have formed the impression that Sander was either dangerous or had previously offended in some way. That application, which sought an order for the discharge of the jury under s 60 of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), was refused. The present ground of appeal is not that the application ought to have been granted, but rather that the consequence of the broadcast was that there was a miscarriage of justice from the possibility that one or more jurors were prejudiced by the broadcast.[88]
[88]R v Fox [1998] QCA 121 at p 9, 10.
At the commencement of the trial the jury was instructed, in the usual way, that they should ignore anything which they might read or see in the media about the trial. On the morning of day three, the jury was instructed to ignore any media coverage that might happen during the trial because it was only the evidence which the jury could consider, so that the jury must ignore references “to anything that is not in evidence”. And in the summing up, on the 14th day of the trial, the jurors were told to exclude from their consideration anything they may have seen, heard or read about the trial. For Sander it is argued that these directions were not sufficient to overcome the potential prejudice from the broadcast.
The starting point is that it is assumed that a jury in a criminal trial acts in accordance with the trial judge’s directions.[89] And the potential for prejudice from this broadcast was not so strong that any juror would have been unable to put it out of his or her mind, in accordance with the judge’s directions. In other words, the evidence does not displace the assumption that the jury acted according to the directions. Further, the broadcast occurred very early in the trial and any impression created by it was likely to have been lost by the end of a relatively long trial. I am unpersuaded that the broadcast caused a miscarriage of justice.
[89]Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414 at 425-426 [31]-[32].
Sander’s appeal against conviction: conclusion
I would order that in CA 211 of 2015, the appeal by Sander against conviction be dismissed.
Publication of this judgment
On 1 and 29 November 2016, Judges of this Court made orders to facilitate the provision of transcripts of the examinations by the ACC of Elfar and Golding to their lawyers for the purposes of their appeals. On each of those dates it was ordered that an unredacted copy of the ultimate judgments in their appeals be provided to the parties and their lawyers, but that the judgments as published have redacted from them anything which disclosed the content of those transcripts. No similar order was made or sought in Sander’s appeal. As I have discussed, the content of the evidence of Elfar and Golding in their examinations was before this Court when their appeals were argued, but not that of Sander’s evidence to the ACC.
The parties were directed to provide written submissions as to whether any such redaction should remain in the published reasons for judgment. The respondent, with the concurrence of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (formerly the ACC), seeks no redaction. Similarly, neither Golding nor Elfar seeks any redaction. In those circumstances, the orders made in their appeals for the redaction of any part of the judgment disclosing the content of their examination transcripts should be set aside.
However, the appellant Sander now says that “his name should be redacted from the judgment”. On his behalf it is submitted that the disclosure, within this Court’s reasons for judgment, of the fact of his examination, could become the subject of speculation within the prison community, potentially exposing him to a risk of violence from other prisoners. This submission, which is not the subject of evidence, implies that other prisoners might consider that Sander gave evidence to the ACC which assisted in the prosecution of another offender.
As I have discussed above, what Sander said when he was examined by the ACC remains unknown. What is known is that he testified before the ACC only under compulsion and that, as I have noted, he declined to be interviewed by police. More generally, there is nothing which indicates that anything which Sander may have said, when compulsorily examined, provided any assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another offender. The contrary is indicated by the trial judge’s remarks when sentencing Sander. Anyone reading this judgment could not believe that Sander may have cooperated with the authorities in any way, let alone as an informant.
The submission for Sander does not refer to any legal impediment to the publication of the judgment in his name. The starting point, of course, is that the ultimate disposition of his prosecution should be a matter of public record and be able to be publicly reported. An order which prohibits that publication should only be made for some established reason. I am unpersuaded that there is such a reason in his case.
6
6
3