R v Harnas - [2015] QDC 260

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Harnas [2015] QDC 260

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY LANCE HARNAS
(applicant)

v

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Townsville DCR 297/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

20 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

21 September 2015

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT – REASONABLE SUSPICION – where applicant a passenger in a vehicle lawfully stopped – where police officer had information about the driver’s involvement in drug matters – where applicant was a front seat passenger and acted suspiciously and was fiddling with his mobile phone - a back seat passenger was looking fixedly straight ahead and had a small backpack at his side – where police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion on proper grounds – where applicant and others detained and the vehicle searched – where applicant admitted ownership of a number of drugs and drug-related items found in the search – where text messages on applicant’s mobile phone revealed drug related conduct – where the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 were complied with.

LEGISLATION:

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 s 29, 30, 31 and 32; Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 s 590AA; Drugs Misuse Act 1986 ss 119 and 120.

CASES:

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292; R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540; R v Keen [2015] QSC 7; R v Jaudzems [2014] QSC 74; R v Fuentes [2012] QSC 288.

COUNSEL:

V P Keegan for the applicant

A Walklate for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Roberts Nehmer McKee Lawyers for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

The applicant (“the defendant”) is charged with three counts of supplying dangerous drugs on two days in April 2014 and one day in September 2014 at Townsville.

Factual circumstances

In the early hours of 5 October 2014 a vehicle driven by one Jackson Wreghitt was stopped by police in Mt. Low Parkway. The defendant was a passenger in the front seat. Another male was in the back seat.

The occupants were detained and the vehicle was searched. The defendant’s mobile telephone was seized and Constable Crocker viewed text messages stored in it. The text messages constitute the evidence on which the charge are made.

“Reasonable suspicion”

Constable Crocker asserted that he had formed “a reasonable suspicion that drugs may be present in the vehicle…” (Statement 28 December 2014); Constable O’Connell asserted that “Crocker informed me that he had formed a reasonable suspicion that drugs may be carried in the vehicle…” (Statement 31 December 2014); the QPrime occurrence sheet records that at 5.33am on 05 October 2014 an entry (made by one or other or by one on behalf of both of them) that “police have formed a suspicion that drugs or utensils may have been located in the vehicle”; and the police brief (QP9)…

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 Harnas

Details

AGLC: R v Harnas [2015] QDC 260
Case: [2015] QDC 260
Decision Date: 20 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Harnas, the dispute arose in the context of a lawful vehicle stop where the police had information concerning the driver's involvement in drug matters. Harnas, a front seat passenger, exhibited suspicious behaviour, including fidgeting with his mobile phone. The back seat passenger was also observed to be looking fixedly straight ahead and had a small backpack. These observations, combined with the officer's prior information, led to the formation of a reasonable suspicion. The vehicle was subsequently searched, and Harnas admitted ownership of drugs and drug-related items found. Additionally, text messages on his phone revealed further drug-related conduct. The legality of the search and detention was challenged by Harnas, raising questions about the compliance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.

The court was tasked with determining whether the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify the search without a warrant. The central issue was whether the officer's suspicion was based on proper grounds, considering Harnas's behaviour and the information about the driver. The court had to assess whether the actions of the police complied with the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and whether the search and subsequent discovery of drugs were lawful under these circumstances.

In evaluating the matter, the court found that the officer's reasonable suspicion was grounded on proper and lawful observations, supported by Harnas's suspicious behaviour and the officer's prior knowledge. The court determined that the search and detention were conducted in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. As such, the court concluded that the evidence obtained during the search was admissible and that the application to suppress the evidence should be refused. The court's reasoning was based on the established legal principles that a reasonable suspicion can be formed on the basis of suspicious behaviour and prior information, and that the officer's actions were justified under the circumstances.

The court ordered that the application be refused, thereby upholding the legality of the search and the admissibility of the evidence obtained. This decision reinforces the importance of reasonable suspicion and proper compliance with legislative provisions in law enforcement practices.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Harnas [2015] QDC 260
PARTIES:	TIMOTHY LANCE HARNAS (applicant) v THE QUEEN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Townsville DCR 297/15
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	21 September 2015
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT – REASONABLE SUSPICION – where applicant a passenger in a vehicle lawfully stopped – where police officer had information about the driver’s involvement in drug matters – where applicant was a front seat passenger and acted suspiciously and was fiddling with his mobile phone - a back seat passenger was looking fixedly straight ahead and had a small backpack at his side – where police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion on proper grounds – where applicant and others detained and the vehicle searched – where applicant admitted ownership of a number of drugs and drug-related items found in the search – where text messages on applicant’s mobile phone revealed drug related conduct – where the relevant provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 were complied with.
LEGISLATION:	Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 s 29, 30, 31 and 32; Criminal Code (Qld) 1899 s 590AA; Drugs Misuse Act 1986 ss 119 and 120.
CASES:	George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; R v Bossley [2012] QSC 292; R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540; R v Keen [2015] QSC 7; R v Jaudzems [2014] QSC 74; R v Fuentes [2012] QSC 288.
COUNSEL:	V P Keegan for the applicant A Walklate for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Roberts Nehmer McKee Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent