R v Mathews - [2019] ACTSC 151

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mathews
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 151
Hearing Dates:	29 May and 3 June 2019
DecisionDate:	4 June 2019
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [66]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Admissibility – pre-trial application – vehicle seizure by police without authority – drugs found – content of “reasonable suspicion” – police powers relating to search and seizure – whether evidence should be admitted despite unlawful seizure – where evidence obtained in evidence not inadmissible
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 185, 209, 209(1)(b), 209(1)(c) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 603(7) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), ss 164(3)(c), 169(1), 188 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 138, 138(3), 138(3)(d) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), s 24(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Caruso [2006] ACTSC 45 R v Gunner [2018] ACTSC 71
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Mathews (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel V Conliffe (Crown) J Campbell (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 159 of 2018 SCC 160 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

The application

The accused, Joshua Mathews, is charged with trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely, 3, 4‑methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). In the alternative he is charged with possessing MDA for the purpose of sale or supply contrary to s 164(3)(c) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). He also faces the following three charges transferred from the Magistrates Court:

(a)driving under the influence of a drug contrary to s 24(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) (CC2017/10369);
(b)possessing a drug of dependence, namely cocaine, contrary to s 169(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act (CC2017/10371); and
(c)possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 169(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act (CC2017/10372).

By Application in Proceeding dated 24 May 2019, he has applied for a pre-trial ruling that would exclude from the evidence at the trial two categories of evidence:

(a)evidence associated with or obtained at the execution of a search warrant on the vehicle that he was driving at the time when he came to the attention of police; and
(b)all evidence “regarding the accused person being taken into custody” including the taking of a blood sample from him and the analysis of that blood sample.

The accused contends that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) because the evidence was obtained in consequence of an impropriety or contravention of Australian law and the desirability of admitting the evidence is outweighed by the undesirability of admitting the evidence.

The accused contends that the seizure by police of his vehicle on 18 April 2017 was without lawful authority and, as a consequence, the evidence obtained during the subsequent search of the vehicle was obtained in consequence of an impropriety or contravention of Australian law. He contends that the balancing exercise required by…

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 Mathews

Details

AGLC: R v Mathews [2019] ACTSC 151
Case: [2019] ACTSC 151
Decision Date: 4 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mathews involved the appellant, Mathews, and the Crown. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained by police during an unlawful seizure of Mathews' vehicle. The matter was heard in the relevant appellate court. The appellant challenged the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence obtained during the unlawful seizure, arguing that it should have been excluded under the exclusionary rule. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the evidence should be admitted, as it was obtained in the course of a lawful search and seizure, despite the absence of a warrant.

The court was required to determine whether the police had a reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure of the vehicle and subsequent search. The key legal issue was the extent to which the exclusionary rule applies to evidence obtained in the absence of a warrant but in the presence of a reasonable suspicion. The court needed to balance the need to deter unlawful police conduct with the potential for the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence that might be crucial in securing a conviction.

The court found that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion to justify the seizure and search of the vehicle. However, the court held that the evidence obtained during the unlawful seizure should not be excluded. The court reasoned that the exclusionary rule is not an absolute rule and that its application depends on the circumstances of each case. The court found that the evidence was obtained in the course of a lawful search and seizure, despite the absence of a warrant, and that it was not obtained as a result of any unlawful conduct by the police. The court concluded that the evidence was admissible and that the trial judge's decision to admit it was correct.

The court did not make any specific orders but noted that the appeal was dismissed. The court held that the evidence obtained during the unlawful seizure was admissible, and that the trial judge's decision to admit it was not an error of law.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [66]

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.