The trial in this matter is listed to commence on 3 October 2018. Christopher King (the accused) is charged on Information dated 27 October 2017 with 11 offences allegedly committed by him between 19 April 2015 and 16 March 2016.
Those charges are respectively:
·On 19 April 2015, at Lonsdale, one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis totalling 2.024 kilograms of female cannabis plant material (count 1).
·On 1 January 2016 at Hallett Cove, one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis totalling 2.57…
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 King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v King [2019] SADC 107
Case
[2019] SADC 107
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v King was heard by the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful search, and the defendant's application to exclude such evidence from the trial. The central issue was whether the evidence obtained through an unlawful search should be excluded under the judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence.
The legal issues before the court were whether the search was lawful, and if not, whether the evidence obtained from it should be excluded due to it being unfair to admit or improperly obtained. The court had to consider the balance between the rights of the individual and the need to ensure that evidence obtained in a manner that infringed those rights should not be admissible. The court was also required to examine the principles surrounding the admissibility of evidence, and whether the evidence should be excluded under judicial discretion.
The court held that the search was indeed unlawful, as it was conducted without a warrant and without the defendant's consent. Given this, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence obtained from the search under the general principles of evidence, as it was deemed to be unfair to admit or improperly obtained. The court emphasised the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring that evidence obtained in a manner that infringed those rights should not be admitted. The court further found that the admission of such evidence would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.
As a result, the court ordered the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the unlawful search. The court also emphasised the need for law enforcement agencies to adhere to legal procedures when conducting searches to ensure the admissibility of evidence in court. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individual rights and the need for law enforcement to act within the bounds of the law.