R v Humphreys - [2022] QSCPR 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Humphreys [2022] QSCPR 17

PARTIES:

THE KING

(respondent)

v
PAULA HUMPHREYS

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 109 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 May 2022

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

The conversation between the applicant and police at her place of residence on 9 October 2020, any evidence derived from an analysis of the applicant’s mobile telephone seized by police on the same day and the record of interview between the applicant and police at the Dalby Police Station on 16 October 2020 be excluded from the evidence to be led at the applicant’s trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – where the applicant was charged on indictment with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant’s residence was searched pursuant to a warrant issued under s 151(a)(i) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the applicant asserted that questioning of her by police during the search was done in contravention of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and Schedule 9 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) (Police Responsibilities Code) – where the applicant sought an order that her answers to questions asked of her by police during the search and subsequently in a formal record of interview be excluded from evidence at her trial – whether the police gave the applicant a warning in compliance with s 418(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – whether the police gave the applicant a warning in substantial compliance with s 23 of the Police Responsibilities Code – whether the police gave the applicant a direction beyond the power conferred by the warrant – whether the various statements made by the applicant in connection with the search and certain evidence obtained from the search should be excluded from evidence at her trial

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where the applicant was charged on indictment with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant’s residence was searched pursuant to a warrant issued under s 151(a)(i) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the applicant sought an order that her answers to questions asked of her by police during the search and subsequently in a formal record of interview be excluded from evidence at her trial – whether, if questioning of the applicant by police during the search was done in contravention of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and Schedule 9 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) (Police Responsibilities Code), the various statements made by her in connection with the search and evidence otherwise obtained during the search should be excluded in the exercise of the court’s discretion

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA

Police…

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 Humphreys

Details

AGLC: R v Humphreys [2022] QSCPR 17
Case: [2022] QSCPR 17
Decision Date: 4 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Humphreys involved the applicant, who was charged on indictment with trafficking in dangerous drugs. The applicant’s residence was searched pursuant to a warrant issued under section 151(a)(i) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The applicant asserted that questioning of her by police during the search was done in contravention of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and Schedule 9 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) (Police Responsibilities Code). As a result, the applicant sought an order that her answers to questions asked of her by police during the search and subsequently in a formal record of interview be excluded from evidence at her trial.

The court was required to decide whether the police gave the applicant a warning in compliance with section 418(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and whether they gave her a warning in substantial compliance with section 23 of the Police Responsibilities Code. The court also needed to determine whether the police gave the applicant a direction beyond the power conferred by the warrant and whether the various statements made by the applicant in connection with the search and certain evidence obtained from the search should be excluded from evidence at her trial. The court's consideration was guided by the principles of statutory interpretation and the exercise of judicial discretion in criminal trials.

The court found that the police did not give the applicant a warning in compliance with section 418(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) or in substantial compliance with section 23 of the Police Responsibilities Code. The court determined that the police gave the applicant a direction beyond the power conferred by the warrant. Consequently, the various statements made by the applicant in connection with the search and certain evidence obtained from the search were excluded in the exercise of the court’s discretion. The court held that the exclusion was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to ensure that the applicant's rights under the relevant legislation were respected.

The court ordered that the conversation between the applicant and police at her place of residence on 9 October 2020, any evidence derived from an analysis of the applicant’s mobile telephone seized by police on the same day, and the record of interview between the applicant and police at the Dalby Police Station on 16 October 2020 be excluded from the evidence to be led at the applicant’s trial. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements when conducting searches and questioning suspects, and the court's willingness to exclude evidence where there is a breach of these requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

The conversation between the applicant and police at her place of residence on 9 October 2020, any evidence derived from an analysis of the applicant’s mobile telephone seized by police on the same day and the record of interview between the applicant and police at the Dalby Police Station on 16 October 2020 be excluded from the evidence to be led at the applicant’s trial.

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 Humphreys [2022] QSCPR 17
PARTIES:	THE KING (respondent) v PAULA HUMPHREYS (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 109 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 May 2022
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	The conversation between the applicant and police at her place of residence on 9 October 2020, any evidence derived from an analysis of the applicant’s mobile telephone seized by police on the same day and the record of interview between the applicant and police at the Dalby Police Station on 16 October 2020 be excluded from the evidence to be led at the applicant’s trial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – where the applicant was charged on indictment with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant’s residence was searched pursuant to a warrant issued under s 151(a)(i) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the applicant asserted that questioning of her by police during the search was done in contravention of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and Schedule 9 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) (Police Responsibilities Code) – where the applicant sought an order that her answers to questions asked of her by police during the search and subsequently in a formal record of interview be excluded from evidence at her trial – whether the police gave the applicant a warning in compliance with s 418(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – whether the police gave the applicant a warning in substantial compliance with s 23 of the Police Responsibilities Code – whether the police gave the applicant a direction beyond the power conferred by the warrant – whether the various statements made by the applicant in connection with the search and certain evidence obtained from the search should be excluded from evidence at her trial CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where the applicant was charged on indictment with trafficking in dangerous drugs – where the applicant’s residence was searched pursuant to a warrant issued under s 151(a)(i) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the applicant sought an order that her answers to questions asked of her by police during the search and subsequently in a formal record of interview be excluded from evidence at her trial – whether, if questioning of the applicant by police during the search was done in contravention of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and Schedule 9 to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) (Police Responsibilities Code), the various statements made by her in connection with the search and evidence otherwise obtained during the search should be excluded in the exercise of the court’s discretion Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Police…