R v KL

Case [2017] QSC 144


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v KL [2017] QSC 144

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

KL

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 721 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

590AA pre-trial hearing

DELIVERED ON:

6 July 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 June 2017

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the court is that:

1.   The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where police performed an emergent search of a residential unit under s 160 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where a substance containing a dangerous drug and a mobile telephone which are alleged to be the property of the applicant were seized during the search – where a post-search approval order was applied for under s 161 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) five days after the search was performed – where the applicant submits that the application under s 161 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) was not made as soon as reasonably practicable – where the applicant applies for an order under s 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld) that all evidence seized during the search of a residential unit on 6 and 7 August 2017 is inadmissible at his trial – whether the application should be granted

Criminal Code (Qld), 590AA

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 160, s 161

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, applied

Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1, cited

MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512, distinguished

R v Bartorillo [2006] QCA 283, cited

R v Cahill [2016] QSC 275, discussed

R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133, distinguished

R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, cited

R v Keen [2016] 2 Qd R 1, cited

R v Milos [2014] QCA 314, applied

R v Munck [2010] QSC 416, cited

R v P [2016] QSC 49, followed

Wendo v The Queen (1963) 109 CLR 559, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J McCarthy for the applicant

S Hedge for the Crown

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Jackson J

1.   The applicant is awaiting trial on indictment in this court for offences that on dates between 21 May 2015 and 7 August 2015 he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in a dangerous drug and that on 7 August 2015 he unlawfully had possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine.

2. He applies for an order under s 590AA of the Criminal Code that all evidence seized during the search of a residential unit on 6 and 7 August 2017 is inadmissible at his trial.

Background facts

3.   At about midnight on 6 August, police officers entered the unit for the original purpose of arresting someone other than the defendant under a warrant for arrest.  They…

Continue reading R v KL

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v KL [2017] QSC 144
Case
[2017] QSC 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KL involves the applicant, KL, contesting the admissibility of evidence obtained through an emergent search conducted by the police under section 160 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). A substance containing a dangerous drug and a mobile telephone, alleged to be KL's property, were seized during the search. KL argues that the subsequent application for a post-search approval order under section 161 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), made five days after the search, was not made as soon as reasonably practicable. As a result, KL applied for an order under section 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld) to exclude all evidence obtained during the search from his trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for a post-search approval order was made within a reasonable timeframe, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under section 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld). The court had to consider the procedural requirements outlined in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and assess the reasonableness of the delay in making the application. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the potential prejudice to KL against the public interest in admitting evidence obtained through an emergent search.

The court examined the statutory requirements and found that the delay in applying for the post-search approval order was not unreasonable. The court concluded that the application was made within a reasonable timeframe and that there was no substantial prejudice to KL. Consequently, the court dismissed KL's application for an order to exclude the evidence. The court found that the evidence obtained during the emergent search would be admissible in KL's trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is that:

1. The application is dismissed.

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.