R v Hammond and Loosemore

The case of R v Hammond and Loosemore was heard in the District Court of Queensland. The defendants, Hammond and Loosemore, were charged with drug offences following a police search of their dwelling. The key issue before the court was whether the police entry into the dwelling and the subsequent emergent search were lawful, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the discretionary power set out in Bunning v Cross. The case hinged on the interpretation of various sections of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), including ss 19, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 160, and the applicability of these provisions to the circumstances of the police entry and search.

The court considered whether the police were empowered to enter the dwelling without consent and whether the emergent search was justified under s 160 of the Act. The defendants argued that the police entry was unlawful as it was not consented to and did not fall within any of the statutory exceptions permitting entry without consent. The court agreed that the police entry and search were unlawful as the officers did not have a warrant and the circumstances did not justify an emergent search. The court also noted that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that an indictable offence was being committed at the time of entry, which was a necessary condition for an emergent search under s 160.

Given the unlawful nature of the police entry and search, the court considered whether the evidence obtained should be admitted under the discretion provided in Bunning v Cross. The court weighed the public interest in the conviction of the defendants against the public interest in protecting citizens from unlawful police conduct. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence outweighed the probative value, and that the public interest in excluding unlawfully obtained evidence was paramount. Consequently, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the unlawful search from being adduced at trial.

The final orders of the court were that the application of each defendant is upheld and that the evidence of what was found in the police searches of unit 2/4 McHugh Street, Rural View, on 15 and 16 June 2014 is excluded from evidence permitted to be adduced at trial.