Legal Research
Cases
R v Matthews-Boysen

R v Matthews-Boysen

Case [2025] SADC 30 31 March 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MATTHEWS-BOYSEN
[2025] SADC 30
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Judge Handshin
31 March 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - SEARCH AND SEIZURE CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE - ADMINISTERING CAUTION - PARTICULAR CASES
The applicant is charged with one count of trafficking a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The charge arises out of a search of a property at Mitchell Park on 29 June 2022. The purpose of the search was in fact to arrest a person by the name of LS, who was suspected of committing child exploitation offences. As police prepared to conduct the search of the property, the applicant was seen leaving the house. Pursuant to s 68 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), the applicant was intercepted by police who initially thought he was LS and asked to produce his identification and his phone, which he did. Upon reviewing the applicant’s identification, police realised he was not LS. The applicant was asked further questions, without caution, about his connection to the property. He told police he had been living at the property for a few weeks and was in a relationship with the mother of the child of interest. The applicant had no apparent connection to LS apart from the fact he had been living at the property. Police decided to retain the applicant’s phone, purportedly pursuant to s 68, on the basis that he was either a suspect in the LS offending, or because of a general practice to seize electronic devices at or having been at a crime scene of the kind under investigation. The applicant returned to the property with police. During subsequent interactions with a detective at the property, the applicant was told of the investigation into LS and treated in a manner that would have conveyed that he was in fact not suspected of any involvement in the LS offending. In that context, the applicant was asked if police could look through his phone. He agreed. Thereafter, during the ongoing search of the property, police located a quantity of suspected controlled drugs. The detective who had been speaking with the applicant asked another detective (Detective Dunworth) to obtain the PIN for the applicant’s phone. Detective Dunworth, who was aware the controlled drugs had been found, approached the applicant and asked ‘what’s the PIN to your phone…’ The applicant provided the PIN. He was not cautioned before being asked for his PIN or told about the discovery of the drugs. The PIN was used to access the applicant’s phone and messages consistent with drug dealing were located. The applicant sought the exclusion of evidence of the contents of the phone on the basis of the failure to caution and what was said to be the unlawful retention of the phone.
Held: the application…

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 Matthews-Boysen

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews-Boysen [2025] SADC 30
Case: [2025] SADC 30
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court was an appeal by the respondent, Matthews-Boysen, against her conviction for drug-related offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained during a police search and interrogation, and whether the caution was properly administered. The Court of Appeal heard the case, with the respondent arguing that the evidence should have been excluded due to improper police conduct during the search and interrogation. The prosecution contended that the police acted appropriately and that the evidence was lawfully obtained and admissible.

The primary legal issues for the Court to determine were whether the police had a lawful basis to conduct the search and interrogation, whether the caution was properly administered, and if the evidence obtained should have been excluded due to improper police conduct. The Court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law pertaining to search and seizure, the administration of the caution, and the admissibility of evidence obtained through police interrogation. The Court also needed to assess whether the police conduct during the search and interrogation fell below the standard required by law, potentially warranting the exclusion of the evidence obtained.

The Court of Appeal found that the police did not have a lawful basis to conduct the search and interrogation, as the respondent had not consented to the search, and the police did not have a warrant. Additionally, the Court held that the caution was not properly administered, as it was not given at the appropriate time. Consequently, the Court determined that the evidence obtained should be excluded due to the unlawful search and improper administration of the caution. The Court of Appeal quashed the respondent's conviction and ordered a retrial, or alternatively, an absolute discharge if the prosecution elected not to proceed with a retrial.

The Court of Appeal quashed the respondent's conviction for drug-related offences and ordered a retrial or, if the prosecution elected not to proceed with a retrial, an absolute discharge. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of adherence to legal standards during police searches and interrogations, as well as the proper administration of the caution. The outcome highlights the need for police to act within the bounds of the law when conducting searches and interrogations to ensure the admissibility of any evidence obtained.

Orders