R v Eliot (No. 1)

Link copied
Case Copied 13 min read

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Eliot (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 327
Hearing dates: 1 August 2022
Date of orders: 4 August 2022
Decision date: 04 August 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:

I exclude the evidence obtained from the computer of the accused.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – evidence – s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995 – improperly obtained evidence – conspiracy to murder – conduct of law enforcement officers – inconsistent with the minimum standards society should expect – vulnerable accused – public interest in admitting relevant evidence – desirability of admitting the evidence does not outweigh the undesirability

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54

Pearse v Pearse (1846) 63 ER 950

R v Coulstock (1998) 99 A Crim R 143

Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

Robinson v Woolworths Limited (2005) 60 NSWLR 612

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Thomas Eliot (a pseudonym) (Accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr P Kerr (Crown)
Ms C Mendes (Accused)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission
File Number(s): 2020/00222503
Publication restriction: Pursuant to section 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010, there be no publication, except for the proper conduct of these proceedings, of:
a. The city in which the school is located and any information that would tend to identify the city;
b. The name of the school and any information that would tend to identify the school;
c. The defendant’s plan for the carrying out of the attack including, but not limited to:
i. The date of the attack
ii. The existence of persons who were also involved in the planning of the attack
iii. The planning undertaken by the defendant and any associates in preparing for the attack
iv. The year group or age of the students to be targeted by the attack
v. The method of attacking students to be used by the defendant

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Thomas Eliot has pleaded not guilty to conspiring with William Yeats (a pseudonym) between 1 June 2020 and 30 June 2022 to murder John Keats (a pseudonym) and other people. He has pleaded not guilty to the alternative count of solicit William Yeats to murder John Keats and others. On 30 June 2020, KT, as a result of what she read in her son's journal, took her son to a hospital in regional New South Wales. The journal expressed wanting to [redacted] his school. He was admitted as a voluntary mental health patient.

  2. [Redacted], a mental health nurse, read the journal and out of his concern he contacted police. Senior Constable Michael Blacker, in company with Constable Skinner, attended the hospital and spoke to nurse [redacted] at 4:10pm. Senior Constable Blacker then reviewed the journal. There were a large number of diagrams and notes that detailed a plan “to cause a mass harm incident” at Thomas Eliot’s school. Senior Constable Blacker contacted Sergeant Bosch and Detective Senior…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Eliot (No. 1) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWDC 327
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eliot (No. 1) involved the accused facing charges related to conspiracy to murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained from the accused's computer. The court had to determine whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that complied with the minimum standards society should expect, particularly in light of the accused's vulnerable status and the conduct of law enforcement officers during the investigation.

The primary legal issue was whether evidence obtained through improper means should be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1995. The court needed to weigh the public interest in admitting relevant evidence against the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained through methods that were inconsistent with the community's expectations. This involved assessing the conduct of law enforcement officers and whether it fell below acceptable standards.

The court held that the evidence obtained from the accused's computer was indeed improperly obtained and thus inadmissible under section 138. The conduct of the law enforcement officers was found to be inconsistent with the minimum standards society should expect, particularly given the accused's vulnerable status. The court concluded that the desirability of admitting the evidence did not outweigh its undesirability, leading to the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the accused's computer.

Orders

Orders of the court

I exclude the evidence obtained from the computer of the accused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.