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 |
Cases Cited: | Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 |
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
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.
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”.
Later that…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] ACTSC 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.