SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Johnson |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 242 |
Hearing Date: | 23 August 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 31 August 2018 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | The evidence is admitted. |
Catchwords: | EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY –section 138 of Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – whether evidence obtained in consequence of a contravention of an Australian law – whether evidence obtained in contravention of an Australian law – whether discretion should be exercised POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES – WARRENTLESS SEARCH – section 190 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether there is imminent danger of injury – whether a person has suffered physical injury – whether it is necessary to enter the premises immediately CRIMINAL LAW – SEARCH WARRANTS – warrant issued via telephone – sections 185, 194 and 205 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – warrant issued when the issuing officer is outside of the ACT – whether warrant was validly issued |
Legislation Cited: | Court of Petty Sessions Ordinance 1930 (ACT) s 8 Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 54 Statute Law Amendment Act (No 2) 2001 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | Gill v Department of Industry, Technology and Resources [1987] VR 681 Grollo v Palmer (1995) 184 CLR 348 Tobacco Leaf Marketing BD v Corte [1983] 3 NSWLR 10 |
Texts Cited: | Australian Law Reform Commission, Evidence (Interim), Report No 26 (1985) |
Parties: | Jake Alexander Johnson (Applicant) The Queen (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr P Edmonds (Applicant) Ms R Christensen (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 96 of 2018; SCC 97 of 2018; SCC 104 of 2018; SCC 105 of 2018 |
MURRELL CJ:
The Application
In his forthcoming trial, the applicant seeks to exclude firearms and drug evidence that was located by police when they searched his premises at 75/177…
Continue reading R v Johnson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Johnson [2018] ACTSC 242
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 242
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the warrantless search conducted under section 190 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which permits a police officer to enter and search premises without a warrant if they believe there is imminent danger of injury or that a person has suffered physical injury. The respondents argued that the search was not justified as there was no imminent danger, and the issuing officer was outside the ACT when the warrant was issued. The court also considered the validity of the search warrant issued via telephone under sections 185, 194, and 205 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). After thorough examination, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was not obtained in consequence of a contravention of an Australian law, and the discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) should not be exercised to exclude the evidence.
The court held that the evidence obtained during the warrantless search was admissible, as it was not obtained in contravention of an Australian law, and the discretion under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) should not be exercised. The court also found that the search warrant was validly issued, despite the issuing officer being outside the ACT at the time. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions of the respondents were upheld. The evidence obtained during the warrantless search was admitted, and the respondents' challenge to the admissibility of the evidence was unsuccessful.
Orders
Orders of the court
The evidence is admitted.
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.