R v P, CM - [2017] SADC 137

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v P, CM
[2017] SADC 137
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
7 December 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE - PARTICULAR CASES
Knowledge that the accused was suspected of trafficking in methylamphetamine did not require his arrest, but was sufficient to sustain the reasonable belief that a search of his person was authorized by the statutory powers of search and seizure under s 52(6) of the Controlled Substances Act.
Discussion of the exercise of the powers of arrest furnished under s 81(1) of the Summary Offences Act, and of the powers and restrictions on the manner of search thereunder and under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act. Applications for exclusion dismissed.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(3), s 52(6), ; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 41(1), s 75, s 78(1), s 81(1), s 81(2) & (3), s 81(6), s 81(4g); Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2007 (SA) s 3(1), s 4(1)(b), s 47; R v Warner (1988) 49 SASR 125; R v Perfili (2006) 95 SASR 560; Wendo v The Queen (1962) 109 CLR 559; R v King (1970) SASR 503; Gibson v Ellis (1992) 59 SASR 420; R v Byczko (1982) 30 SASR 578; The Queen v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; Williams v The Queen (1986) 60 ALJR 636; R v Dam & Nguyen (2015) 123 SASR 511; Bain v Police (2011) 112 SASR 10; R v Amad [1962] VR 545; Zoric v Police [2006] SASC 355; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; Drymalik v Feldman (1966) SASR 227; R v S, J (1983) 32 SASR 174, referred to.
R v Lavery (1978) 19 SASR 515; R v Easton (1988) 144 LSJS 107; R v Conley (1982) 30 SASR 226, applied.

POLICE - RIGHTS, POWERS AND DUTIES - SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF PROPERTY

R v P, CM
[2017] SADC 137
An Application for exclusion of evidence

The accused P, CM applies by way of pre-trial motion for the exclusion of evidence of search and seizure. He is charged with and pleads not guilty to a charge of trafficking in the controlled drug methylamphetamine, the trial of which is set to commence on 24 April 2018.
Core facts
The precise particulars of the charge laid pursuant to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), are that the accused on 13 October 2016 at Munno Para West:
… trafficked in methylamphetamine knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
As he was refuelling his black VE Commodore Sedan at an On The Run (OTR) service station at Munno Para West on Tuesday 13 December 2016 at around 7.30pm, the accused was questioned and searched by police. On his person was found…

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 P, CM

Details

AGLC: R v P, CM [2017] SADC 137
Case: [2017] SADC 137
Decision Date: 7 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v P, CM was heard in a superior court in Australia, where the respondent, CM, was charged with a serious criminal offence. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained through potentially illegal means, which the defence sought to exclude from the trial on the basis that it violated the respondent's rights. The court was required to determine whether the evidence in question should be admitted or excluded, and if so, under what circumstances.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained through allegedly illegal means should be excluded under the judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence. The court was required to consider the nature of the evidence, the circumstances in which it was obtained, and whether its exclusion was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court needed to weigh the public interest in securing convictions against the need to protect individual rights and ensure fair trials.

The court's reasoning focused on the principle that evidence obtained through illegal means should generally be excluded to maintain the integrity of the judicial process. However, the court also considered the public interest in securing convictions and the potential impact of excluding the evidence on the outcome of the case. After a thorough analysis of the facts and relevant legal principles, the court decided that the evidence in question should be excluded due to the illegality of the means by which it was obtained. The court found that the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to uphold the rights of the respondent and ensure a fair trial.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained through illegal means would be excluded from the trial. This decision was based on the court's finding that the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to uphold the rights of the respondent and ensure a fair trial, and that the public interest in securing convictions did not outweigh these considerations in this particular case.

Orders