R v Loader No. Sccrm-01-235 - [2003] SASC 16

R v LOADER
[2003] SASC 16
Criminal

MULLIGHAN J The accused was charged with two counts of murder. He pleaded not guilty. Before the jury was empanelled, he indicated that he objected to evidence being placed before the jury of the interview of him by Detective Rowney and Detective Jennings at the Port Adelaide Police Station on 6^th December 2000. The interview was in two parts. I permitted evidence to be given on the voir dire and after hearing submissions I ruled that the evidence of the first part of the interview would be admitted and that I was prepared to give further consideration to the second part of the interview after further evidence had been given at the trial. During the course of the trial, and before the prosecution case had closed, I heard further evidence on the voir dire and further submissions. I saw no reason to alter my earlier ruling. I said that I would give reasons for that ruling after the completion of the trial and I now do so. I have incorporated into these reasons references to the further evidence given on the voir dire.
In brief terms the grounds of the application were that Detective Rowney had not cautioned the accused before the interview commenced, had misled him about the purpose of the interview and had not given him important information. Consequently it would be unfair to admit the interview into evidence and it should be excluded in the exercise of discretion. There was no suggestion that the answers given by the accused were not made voluntarily or that the accused was in custody. He was not arrested until about five weeks after the interview.
Because of the challenge to the evidence of Detective Rowney that he did not regard the accused as a suspect in the disappearance and murder of the two men and the assertion that he should have so regarded him, it is necessary to set out significant matters which came to the attention of the police during their investigation and, in particular, to the attention of Detective Rowney. Detective Jennings was present at the interview as a corroborating officer and he had no information about the disappearance or murder of the two men which is relevant to any issue or the application to exclude the evidence.
The accused was charged with the murder of Alan John Goodwin between 24^th October 2000 and 27^th October at Port Adelaide (the first count) and with the murder of Terry Edwin Comans between the same dates also at Port Adelaide (the second count). Mr Goodwin was a dealer in cannabis and Mr Comans assisted him from time to time. The accused was involved with them in the growing of a cannabis crop at Prospect in rented premises.
It was the prosecution case that at about 6.18 am on 25^th October 2000 the accused telephoned Mr Comans and arranged to meet him. Mr Goodwin lived with his wife at Salisbury. He…

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 Loader No. Sccrm-01-235

Details

AGLC: R v Loader No. Sccrm-01-235 [2003] SASC 16
Case: [2003] SASC 16
Decision Date: 30 January 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused was charged with two counts of murder and pleaded not guilty. The court had to decide whether an interview with the accused could be admitted into evidence. The accused objected to the evidence of the interview on the basis that it was unfair to admit it. He submitted that the interview was improperly conducted as the police did not caution him at the beginning of the interview and did not give him important information. The court considered the evidence and found that the police were not required to caution the accused as they did not regard him as a suspect in the investigation. The court found that the police conducted the interview fairly and appropriately given the circumstances of the investigation. The court concluded that it would not be unfair to the accused to admit the evidence and there was no reason to exercise the discretion to exclude it. The court decided to exclude some parts of the interview if so requested by the accused.

Orders