R v Jones - [2022] QSCPR 14

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Jones [2022] QSCPR 14
PARTIES: THE KING
(Respondent)
v
KRISTY LYNETTE JONES
(Applicant)
FILE NO: Indictment No 511 of 2022
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code
DELIVERED ON: 15 September 2022
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 14 September 2022
JUDGE: Bowskill CJ
ORDERS: The application is refused.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS – SEARCH AND SEIZURE – application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code to exclude evidence of a search
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 29
R v Fuentes [2012] QSC 288; (2012) 230 A Crim R 379
R v Morrison [2020] QSCPR 19
R v Paull [2021] QSCPR 22

COUNSEL: H Robertson for the applicant T Corsbie for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the
respondent

The applicant is charged on indictment with one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, in a quantity exceeding 2 grams, and one count of unlawful possession of the dangerous drug alprazolam. The offences are alleged to have been committed on 4 September 2021. The evidence giving rise to these charges was obtained as the result of a search of the applicant, and a bag(s) in her possession, conducted by police on that date.
The applicant applies for a ruling under s 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code that the evidence obtained as a result of the search – namely, the drugs – be excluded.
The applicant submits the search carried out by police was unlawful because the circumstances asserted by the police officer as the grounds of his suspicion were not sufficient to induce the required suspicion in the mind of a reasonable person, such as to enliven the power to search a person under s 29 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA). If found to be unlawful, the applicant further submits that the discretion to nonetheless permit the evidence obtained from the search to be relied upon should not be exercised favourably to the Crown.
Section 29(1) of the PPRA provides that:
“A police officer who reasonably suspects any of the prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a warrant exist may, without a warrant, do any of the following—

(a) stop and detain a person;
(b) search the person and anything in the person’s possession for anything relevant to the circumstances for which the person is detained.”

By s 30(1)(a), one of the prescribed circumstances for searching a person without a warrant is that the person has something that may be an unlawful dangerous drug.
The evidence before the court for the purposes of this application comprises the written statement from the relevant police officer, Senior Constable Maher, as well as the footage recorded by the body-worn camera he used on the day and a still shot from the “dashcam” footage from the 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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2022] QSCPR 14
Case: [2022] QSCPR 14
Decision Date: 15 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved the defendant, Jones, and the Crown, who were before the court to address a search and seizure issue. The defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his premises, arguing that it was obtained without a warrant and was therefore unlawful. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the search was lawful under the circumstances and that the evidence should be admitted. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which had to determine whether the evidence obtained during the search should be excluded.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the search of the defendant's premises was lawful and, if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under section 590AA of the Criminal Code. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the search was conducted, the nature of the evidence obtained, and the applicable legal principles governing search and seizure. The court also had to consider the defendant's argument that the search was unlawful and that the evidence obtained should be excluded as a result.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the search was conducted under circumstances that did not require a warrant and that the evidence obtained was therefore lawful. The court held that the defendant's argument that the search was unlawful and that the evidence should be excluded was without merit. The court accordingly refused the application to exclude the evidence obtained during the search.

The final orders of the court were that the application to exclude evidence obtained during the search of the defendant's premises was refused. The evidence obtained during the search was therefore admissible in the proceedings against the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is 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 Jones [2022] QSCPR 14
PARTIES:	THE KING (Respondent) v KRISTY LYNETTE JONES (Applicant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 511 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application under s 590AA of the Criminal Code
DELIVERED ON:	15 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 September 2022
JUDGE:	Bowskill CJ
ORDERS:	The application is refused.

COUNSEL:	H Robertson for the applicant T Corsbie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

(a)	stop and detain a person;
(b)	search the person and anything in the person’s possession for anything relevant to the circumstances for which the person is detained.”