R v Jacilla Nerrah Yatta - [2015] QDC 58

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jacilla Nerrah Yatta [2015] QDC 58

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(Respondent)

v

JACILLA NERRAH YATTA
(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

1692/13

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

s590AA Pre-Trial Application

DELIVERED ON:

18 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

04 March 2015

JUDGE:

Bowskill QC DCJ

ORDER:

Application Allowed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Police Interrogation – Discretion to Exclude Confessional Statements – Generally – Voluntariness

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Police Interrogation – Propriety of Police Questioning and Other Conduct by the Police – Administering Caution – Generally – Aboriginals

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Evidence Unfair to Admit or Improperly Obtained – Generally

EVIDENCE – Admissions and Declarations – Admissions – Against Interest – Discretion to Exclude – Fairness Discretion

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld)

McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501

R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133

R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435

R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159

Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396

COUNSEL:

J. Noud for the Applicant

P. Clohessy for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Application

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

This is an application by the defendant, Jacilla Yatta (the applicant), under s 590AA of the Criminal Code for the following orders:

(a)that the interview between police and the applicant on 27 September 2012 be excluded from evidence; and
(b)that the items of clothing located by police as a result of a search be excluded from evidence.

The applicant is charged with one count of armed robbery, alleged to have been committed on 3 September 2012. It is alleged that, around 2:40 pm on that date, the applicant entered a 7-11 convenience store at Mt Gravatt East, approached the serving counter with a knife, made a demand for and received money. The assailant was described by the owner of the 7-11, who was there at the time, as being “approximately 20 to 22 years old, dark complexion, approximately 5 foot tall, wearing black pants and a black hooded jumper pulled over her head”. After receiving the money, the assailant left the store.

The applicant is an Aboriginal person who, at the time of the alleged offence, was 17 years old. It was acknowledged by counsel for the Crown that she was a person who had limited contact with police prior to this; she had not been interviewed previously.

Subsequently, on 27 September 2012, at 7:50pm the applicant was a passenger in a vehicle which was intercepted by police officers, Detective Senior Constable (now Detective Sergeant) Celebicanin (Celebicanin) and Plain Clothes Constable (now Senior Constable) Pearson (Pearson) on Newnham Road, in Wishart.

Pearson gave evidence that the vehicle was intercepted because it was…

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 Jacilla Nerrah Yatta

Details

AGLC: R v Jacilla Nerrah Yatta [2015] QDC 58
Case: [2015] QDC 58
Decision Date: 18 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jacilla Nerrah Yatta involved the respondent, Jacilla Nerrah Yatta, who was charged with drug-related offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of statements made by the respondent during police interrogation and whether these statements were obtained voluntarily and fairly. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues the court was required to address were whether the respondent's statements during the police interrogation were made voluntarily and whether the police complied with the requirements for administering caution, particularly in relation to the respondent's Aboriginal heritage. The court also needed to determine if the evidence was obtained in a manner that was fair and whether it should be excluded due to any impropriety.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of judicial discretion in admitting or excluding evidence, especially in cases involving confessions. The court examined the circumstances of the interrogation, the respondent's background, and the police conduct. It found that the police did not adequately administer the caution to the respondent, and this failure, combined with the respondent's Aboriginal background, led to the conclusion that the statements were not made voluntarily. The court exercised its discretion to exclude the statements on the grounds of unfairness and impropriety.

The court allowed the application to exclude the confessional statements, finding that the evidence was obtained in a manner that was unfair and improperly obtained. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that all legal procedures, particularly those involving vulnerable individuals, are strictly adhered to.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application Allowed

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 Jacilla Nerrah Yatta [2015] QDC 58
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (Respondent) v JACILLA NERRAH YATTA (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	1692/13
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	s590AA Pre-Trial Application
DELIVERED ON:	18 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	04 March 2015
JUDGE:	Bowskill QC DCJ
ORDER:	Application Allowed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Police Interrogation – Discretion to Exclude Confessional Statements – Generally – Voluntariness CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Police Interrogation – Propriety of Police Questioning and Other Conduct by the Police – Administering Caution – Generally – Aboriginals CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – Evidence Unfair to Admit or Improperly Obtained – Generally EVIDENCE – Admissions and Declarations – Admissions – Against Interest – Discretion to Exclude – Fairness Discretion Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld) McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435 R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159 Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396
COUNSEL:	J. Noud for the Applicant P. Clohessy for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Application Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent