R v Healy

Case [2014] QSC 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Healy [2014] QSC 236

PARTIES:

R
(respondent)

v

HEALY, Shaun Daniel Joseph
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

No 449 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Applications under s 590AA Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to

exclude expert evidence from being admitted at trial.

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2014; 14 August 2014

JUDGE:

Carmody CJ

ORDER:

The application for the exclusion of the proposed testimony of (1) Brett Dunn and (2) the intercepted conversations from the evidence at trial is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED – PARTICULAR CASES – where co-offender gave induced statement in the course of cooperating with police – where induced statement was subsequently confirmed under caution – where interviews were not recorded prior to confirming statement under caution – whether failure to fully comply with terms of s 23F and s 23V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) renders evidence inadmissible – whether public policy discretion alone justifies exclusion of evidence of co-offender

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where phone calls made to one mobile service diverted to another that was intercepted under warrant – where co-offender who held both mobile services cooperated with police – whether interception of the diverted calls was done “under a warrant” within the meaning of s 7(2) of the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979 (Cth)

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – VOLUNATRY STATEMENTS – INDUCEMENT – OTHER MATTERS NOT CONSTITUTING INDUCEMENT – where co-offender gave induced statement to police – where induced statement was subsequently confirmed under caution – where alleged that police induced co-offender to cooperate through fear of prejudice or hope of advantage – whether evidence demonstrates co-offender’s independent choice to cooperate

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 590AA

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 23F and s 23V, considered
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 5 and s 7, considered

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, cited
Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257 at 216, followed; at 309, 317, cited
Hilton v Wells (1985) 59 ALJR 396; 58 ALR 245, applied
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501, considered
Pollard v R  (1992) 176 CLR 177 at 202-203, cited
R v Ireland (1920) 126 CLR 321 at 334-335, cited
R v Marks (2004) VSC 476 at [108], applied
R v Pinkstone (SC(WA), 10 March 1997, unreported), applied
R v Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 398 at 403-404, followed
R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159 at 194, cited
R v Warrell [1993] 1 VR 671 at 681, cited
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19, cited

COUNSEL:

G Rice for the respondent
T Ryan for the defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Director…

Continue reading R v Healy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Healy [2014] QSC 236
Case
[2014] QSC 236
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Healy involved the Crown prosecuting the appellant, Healy, on charges of conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug. The appellant sought to exclude certain evidence from the trial, including the testimony of Brett Dunn, a co-offender, and intercepted conversations. The High Court was tasked with determining the admissibility of these pieces of evidence.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the induced statement given by Dunn was admissible and whether the interception of diverted phone calls was done "under a warrant" within the meaning of s 7(2) of the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979 (Cth). Additionally, the Court had to decide whether the failure to comply with the recording requirements under s 23F and s 23V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) rendered Dunn's evidence inadmissible. The Court also had to consider whether the public policy discretion alone justified the exclusion of Dunn's evidence.

The Court found that the inducement of Dunn's statement did not render it inadmissible, as it was confirmed under caution and demonstrated Dunn's independent choice to cooperate. Regarding the interception of the diverted phone calls, the Court held that the interception was done "under a warrant" as it was authorised by the relevant warrant. The Court further held that the failure to comply with the recording requirements did not render Dunn's evidence inadmissible, as it did not affect the voluntariness or reliability of the evidence. Finally, the Court found that the public policy discretion did not justify the exclusion of Dunn's evidence, as it would not significantly undermine the integrity of the trial.

The application for the exclusion of the proposed testimony of Brett Dunn and the intercepted conversations from the evidence at trial was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for the exclusion of the proposed testimony of (1) Brett Dunn and (2) the intercepted conversations from the evidence at trial is dismissed.

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.