R v Nguyen

The appeal concerned a criminal conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant, R v Nguyen, argued that the sole ground of appeal was the voir dire Judge's error in concluding that the police stop and search of the appellant and her vehicle was lawful. The appellant contended that the evidence obtained from this search should have been excluded. The case was heard by Peek, Blue, and Bampton JJ.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Detective McFarlane possessed sufficient suspicion, as required by the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), to lawfully stop, search, and detain the appellant and her vehicle. The court was required to determine if the basis for Detective McFarlane's suspicion, formed prior to initiating the stop, was legally sound, and if not, whether the evidence obtained should have been excluded in the exercise of the court's discretion.

The court found that Detective McFarlane's evidence did not establish a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was in possession of drugs or was involved in drug trafficking. While Detective McFarlane stated she had formed "enough suspicion" to stop and search, she failed to articulate what specific grounds formed this suspicion. Her knowledge of the address being a "drug address" and a previous, unrelated drug-related incident at the house did not, in themselves, provide a reasonable suspicion directed at the appellant or her vehicle at the time of the stop. The court noted that any subsequent observations made by Detective McFarlane after the decision to stop had already been made were irrelevant to the legality of the initial suspicion. Consequently, the search was deemed unlawful.

Given that the prosecution's case was entirely reliant on the evidence obtained from the unlawful search, the court exercised its discretion to exclude that evidence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and verdicts of acquittal were substituted on both counts.