R v M C-N; R v Andy

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v M C-N; R v Andy

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 129

Hearing Date:

28 – 29 April 2021

DecisionDate:

30 June 2021

Before:

Burns ACJ

Decision:

See [73]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-Trial Application – s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – invalid search and surveillance warrant – where items seized under invalid warrant – application that evidence be excluded as illegally or unlawfully obtained – where warrant invalid due to omitting offence to which warrant related – where applicants charged with aggravated burglary – where police became aware of warrant invalidity while on property subject of warrant after items had been seized – consideration of “rule of strictness” in relation to discretion under s 138 – whether police conduct deliberate or reckless – consideration of whether conduct of police amounted to deliberate contravention of Australian law or deliberate impropriety – consideration of probative value of evidence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3E
Criminal Code 2002 (Cth) ss 45A, 308, 312, 403
Evidence Act 2011
(ACT) s 138
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, signed 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 17

Cases Cited:

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Kadir v The Queen
[2020] HCA 1; 267 CLR 109
Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs
[2009] HCA 7; 83 ALJR 494
R v Dalley [2002] NSWCCA 284; 132 A Crim R 169
R v Thompson (No 3) [2017] ACTSC 53
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (Cth) [2020] HCA 14; 280 A Crim R 356
Tran v Stapleton [2021] ACTSC 1

Parties:

The Queen (Respondent)

M C-N (Applicant)

Damien Thomas Andy (Applicant)

Representation:

Counsel

K Lee (Respondent)

B Morrisroe (Applicant)

J Cooper (Applicant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

KG Criminal Law (Applicant)

Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant)

File Numbers:

SCC 298 of 2020; SCC 20 of 2021

BURNS ACJ:

Background

  1. The three co-accused Damien Andy, M C-N and Alexander Warne are charged with the following counts:

i. one count aggravated burglary by joint commission, contrary to ss 45A and 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code);

ii. one count damaging property by joint commission, contrary to ss 45A and 403 of the Criminal Code; and

iii. one count theft by joint commission, contrary to ss 45A and 308 of the Criminal Code.

  1. It is alleged that on 3 September 2020, the three co-accused forced entry into a premises in Taylor, ACT, while carrying baseball bats and sticks and shouted threats at the homeowner. The homeowner then fled the premises with her baby and young child after seeing the co-accused. The co-accused used the weapons to cause damage to property within the premises including two televisions, shelving units and various internal walls, doors and glass windows. The co-accused also stole a white Xbox One-S gaming console and a glass smoking implement being a “bong”.

  1. Later that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v M C-N; R v Andy and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2021] ACTSC 129
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, M C-N and Andy, were facing charges of aggravated burglary in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on the validity of a search and surveillance warrant under which items were seized, and whether this evidence should be excluded from the trial on the grounds that it was obtained illegally or unlawfully. The warrant was deemed invalid because it omitted the offence to which it related. The applicants applied for the evidence to be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT).

The court had to determine whether the evidence should be excluded due to the invalid warrant. The primary issue was whether the police conduct amounted to a deliberate contravention of Australian law or deliberate impropriety, and whether the evidence's probative value outweighed the unfairness of admitting it. The court also considered the "rule of strictness" in relation to the discretion under s 138, which generally requires a strong reason to exclude evidence obtained through an invalid warrant.

The court found that the police became aware of the warrant's invalidity after the items were seized but before the warrant was executed. The court concluded that the police conduct was not deliberate or reckless. The court held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the unfairness of admitting it. The court denied the application to exclude the evidence, finding that the police conduct did not amount to a deliberate contravention of Australian law or deliberate impropriety. The evidence was therefore admitted, and the trial proceeded.

The court ordered that the evidence obtained under the invalid warrant be admitted in the trial of M C-N and Andy for aggravated burglary. The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [73]

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.