R v Morton - [2022] QDCPR 11

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morton [2022] QDCPR 11

PARTIES:

R

(Respondent)
v

MILLICENT AGNES MORTON

(Applicant Defendant)

FILE NO:
Indictment No 480 of 2021

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2022 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2022

JUDGE:

Coker DCJ

ORDER:

That the oral application made 7 February 2022 be dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where the Applicant is charged with 1 count of Arson – where the Applicant says that interviews between her and 2 different police officers on 21 and 22 December 2017 should be excluded from evidence at trial – where reliance is placed upon the provisions of section 415 & 418 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the evidence was obtained illegally – whether the evidence should be excluded due to its prejudiced nature.

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), Chap 15, s 415, s 418

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130

CASES:

R v Bondareff [1999] 74 SASR 353, considered

George v Rocket & Anor [1990] 170 CLR 104, considered

R v Bennett [2017] QSC 181, considered

R v Sika [2013] QCA 247, considered

COUNSEL:
M. Sheppard for the Respondent

D. Honchin for the Applicant

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Respondent

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Applicant

Introduction

This application was heard on the 7^th of February 2022 in Townsville and, on that day, I indicated that the application was dismissed. I further explained that that urgent determination in relation to the application related to the fact that the matter was listed to proceed as a Judge alone trial before Judge Lynham of this Court commencing on the 8^th of February 2022. I indicated that I would deliver reasons in respect of this application to follow and these are those reasons.
On the 31st of January 2022 an affidavit was filed in this Court under the hand of Julie Anne Kefford, a solicitor employed at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service North Queensland. Ms Kefford acted on behalf of the applicant Millicent Agnes Morton. It was noted that it was intended to file an application to seek to exclude any record of the conversations between the applicant and two police officers, who had conducted attendances with her on the 21st and 22nd of December 2017. The first of those was a conversation between the Applicant and Detective Sergeant Dean Robert Faint on the evening of the 21st of December 2017, and the second related to a conversation between the Applicant and Senior Constable Shannon Luke on the morning of the 22nd of December 2017.
The argument arose as a result of a concern that…

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 Morton

Details

AGLC: R v Morton [2022] QDCPR 11
Case: [2022] QDCPR 11
Decision Date: 7 February 2022 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morton involved the applicant, who was charged with one count of arson. The applicant sought to exclude certain interviews conducted with two different police officers on 21 and 22 December 2017 from evidence at the trial. The applicant argued that these interviews should be excluded based on the provisions of section 415 and 418 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The applicant's central argument was that the evidence obtained during these interviews was illegal and prejudiced, and therefore should not be admissible at the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence obtained during the interviews was indeed illegal and whether it should be excluded due to its prejudiced nature. The court was required to examine the provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to determine the legality and admissibility of the evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the exclusion of the evidence would be in the interests of justice under section 138 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).

The court dismissed the oral application made on 7 February 2022, ruling that the evidence obtained during the interviews was not illegal and should not be excluded. The court found that the provisions of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) were not contravened during the interviews. Furthermore, the court determined that the evidence was not of a prejudiced nature that would warrant its exclusion. The court held that the evidence was relevant and probative to the charge of arson, and its exclusion would not be in the interests of justice. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained during the interviews would be admissible at the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the oral application made 7 February 2022 be dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Morton [2022] QDCPR 11
PARTIES:	R (Respondent) v MILLICENT AGNES MORTON (Applicant Defendant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 480 of 2021
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2022 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2022
JUDGE:	Coker DCJ
ORDER:	That the oral application made 7 February 2022 be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where the Applicant is charged with 1 count of Arson – where the Applicant says that interviews between her and 2 different police officers on 21 and 22 December 2017 should be excluded from evidence at trial – where reliance is placed upon the provisions of section 415 & 418 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) – whether the evidence was obtained illegally – whether the evidence should be excluded due to its prejudiced nature.
LEGISLATION:	Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), Chap 15, s 415, s 418 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130
CASES:	R v Bondareff [1999] 74 SASR 353, considered George v Rocket & Anor [1990] 170 CLR 104, considered R v Bennett [2017] QSC 181, considered R v Sika [2013] QCA 247, considered
COUNSEL:	M. Sheppard for the Respondent D. Honchin for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Respondent Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Applicant