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
- AGLC
- R v KL [2017] QSC 144
- Case
- [2017] QSC 144
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.