JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 and 30 April, 2, 6, 7 and 9 May 2013
DATE OF RULING:	17 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Meade (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 250

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Trial — Murder — Accused charged with having murdered his former wife in Melbourne in July 2011 — Search conducted of accused’s premises in South Australia approximately seven hours after police first attended at crime scene — South Australian police acting as agents of Victorian police — Application to exclude evidence of certain statements and gestures reportedly made to South Australian police — Accused not cautioned — Execution of search warrant not recorded — Whether evidence obtained in consequence of an ‘impropriety’ — Whether accused ought to have been cautioned — Whether accused relevantly ‘in custody’ — No sufficient evidentiary basis to have accused arrested at time of execution of search warrant — Whether execution of search warrants ought to have been recorded — Accused not viewed as a ‘suspect’ by investigating official at relevant time — No objective basis for suspicion — Consideration of terms ‘suspicion’ and ‘belief’ in context of statements made by accused persons in course of police inquiries — Application refused — George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, applied — Evidence Act 2008 s 138.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R A Elston SC with Mr N A Hutton	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P J Morrissey SC with Mr D Cronin	Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The accused is charged with having, on 1 July 2011, bludgeoned his former wife, Sally Brooks, to the head with such force that she died some ten days later. His defence is essentially one of alibi. He claims that he was not in Melbourne on the day she was attacked. Rather, he was in the Molesworth area, having spent several days prospecting for gold. He says that he left Molesworth at about 10:00am that day, and drove directly back to Adelaide where he lived. He arrived there late that evening.

The Crown seek to lead evidence of several statements (or gestures) that the accused made during the course of a search that was conducted at his home in Adelaide at about 12:10am, South Australian time, on the morning of 2 July 2011. That search was conducted pursuant to what is known in South Australia as a ‘general warrant’. The defence does not object to evidence of the search itself being led, nor to the product of that search being tendered in the trial. It does, however, object to the evidence of the accused’s statements.

It is necessary to identify with precision the particular statements and/or comments attributed to the accused by the South Australian police, and to explain their…

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 Meade (Ruling No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Meade (Ruling No 1) [2013] VSC 250
Case: [2013] VSC 250
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meade (Ruling No 1) involved a criminal trial where the accused was charged with the murder of his former wife in Melbourne in July 2011. The dispute centred on the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search of the accused's premises in South Australia, conducted approximately seven hours after the police first attended the crime scene. The South Australian police acted as agents of the Victorian police during this search.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence obtained during the search was tainted by an 'impropriety', whether the accused should have been cautioned prior to the search, whether the accused was in custody at the time, and whether the execution of the search warrant should have been recorded. The court also considered whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to have arrested the accused at the time of the search. Additionally, the court examined the terms 'suspicion' and 'belief' in the context of statements made by the accused during police inquiries.

The court found that the accused was not viewed as a 'suspect' by the investigating official at the relevant time and there was no objective basis for suspicion. The court held that the accused was not in custody, and therefore, there was no requirement to caution him. The court also determined that there was no sufficient evidentiary basis for arresting the accused at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Furthermore, the court held that the execution of the search warrant did not need to be recorded as the accused was not viewed as a'suspect'. The application to exclude the evidence obtained from the search was ultimately refused. The court applied the principles established in George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104 and section 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 in reaching its decision.

The court's final orders were that the application to exclude the evidence obtained from the search of the accused's premises was refused. The evidence would therefore be admissible at the trial.

Orders