R v Gibson No. DCCRM-00-53 - [2000] SADC 80

Q v Ian David Gibson
[2000] SADC D80

Judge C R Lee
Criminal

This is an application on the voir dire. The accused is charged with the offence of possessing methylamphetamine for sale on 23 August 1999 at Kadina, contrary to section 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. He seeks to exclude from the prosecution case:-
1...... evidence of the finding and seizure of the drug after he had been searched by police, and
2. evidence of his admissions to police that he was in possession of the drug for the purpose of sale.
Two police officers, Constable Staker and Constable Pratt, gave evidence. They were on uniform mobile patrol at the time. It was about 10 o’clock on a Thursday morning. Constable Staker was the driver of the police vehicle, and Constable Pratt, who was Constable Staker’s superior, was the passenger. Constable Staker took a decision to stop a Holden Torana being driven along one of the streets of the town. He did so because “I wanted to find out who was actually driving and the vehicle was a little bit rough around the edges, so I just wanted to examine the vehicle as well”. He said he was acting in accordance with powers in ss42 and 160 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
Having stopped the Torana, Constable Staker went to the driver’s side door, and saw that there were three occupants. The driver and the accused were in the front seat and a third person was in the back seat. He told me he immediately recognised the driver and asked for and was shown his licence.
Constable Pratt told me he went to the passenger side door after checking the registration disc, and motioned to the accused to wind his window down. He greeted the accused and thinks that he asked him for his name. He said he did that “Just as a standard practice; to make conversation with the people in the vehicle”. He then observed a white plastic shopping bag on the floor between the accused’s legs. The top of the bag was open and he could see green vegetable material which he believed to be cannabis. The accused attempted with his feet to conceal the bag and to move it back underneath the seat. Constable Pratt asked the accused to get out of the vehicle and made a quick inspection of the contents of the bag. He asked the accused to place his hands on the bonnet for the purposes of a search of his pockets. The search disclosed, amongst other things, a film canister containing small press sealed bags of white powder subsequently analysed as methylamphetamine.
Constable Pratt then had the following conversation with the accused:-
“Q.    Whats this Ian.
A.     Amphetamines.
Q.     Are you using.
A.     No.
Q.     Are you or have you been selling these amphetamines.
A.     Yes.
Q...... Ian you are under arrest for possessing amphetamines for sale. Do you understand that. You are no obliged to answer any…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Gibson No. DCCRM-00-53 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: [2000] SADC 80
Decision Date: 28 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gibson No. DCCRM-00-53 involved the accused, Ian David Gibson, who was charged with possessing methylamphetamine for sale. The dispute pertained to the admissibility of evidence obtained from the accused, including the drug seized during a police search and the accused's admissions to police. The Supreme Court of South Australia presided over the case. The primary legal issues revolved around the legitimacy of the police search and the admissibility of the accused's statements under the circumstances.

The court examined whether the police had a valid basis to stop the vehicle and conduct the search. It was noted that the police officer's initial justification for stopping the vehicle, based on its appearance, did not meet the statutory requirements for reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the search conducted by the police was deemed unlawful as it occurred before any suspicion was reasonably formed. Given that the initial search was unlawful, the subsequent discovery and seizure of the methylamphetamine were also considered unlawful. The court held that the evidence obtained from the search should be excluded to safeguard the rights of citizens against unwarranted stops and searches.

Additionally, the court assessed the admissibility of the accused's admissions to police regarding the possession of methylamphetamine for sale. The court ruled that the accused should have been cautioned by the police officer before eliciting admissions, especially when the officer had reasonable suspicion of the accused's involvement. As the accused was not cautioned, the court concluded that the admissions should be excluded from the evidence.

In conclusion, the court determined that both the evidence from the unlawful search and the accused's uncautioned admissions should be excluded from the prosecution's case. This decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in ensuring that evidence obtained in violation of legal standards does not prejudice the accused's rights.

Orders