R –v –Parkinson - [2006] QDC 57

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R –v –Parkinson [2006] QDC 057
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN Against Lester Kenneth PARKINSON
FILE NO:	12/ 06
PROCEEDINGS:	Application for pre-trial directions.
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATES	1, 16 and 24 February 2006
JUDGE:	CF Wall QC
ORDER:	Police interview excluded.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE – application to exclude police interview with Aboriginal acc – acc a person of special need as defined in Operational Procedures Manual, Queensland Police Service – non-compliance with ss. 249(1) and 251 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, ss. 34(2), 36(5) and 36(6) Responsibilities Code and ss 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. Operational Procedures Manual – wh police should have arranged for a support person to attend the interview with the acc - cumulative effect of non-compliance with statutory and procedural requirements Legislation referred to: Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss. 4(e), 5, 249, 251 Responsibilities Code (Schedule 10, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000), ss. 34 and 36 Operational Procedures Manual, Queensland Police Service, ss. 6.3.2, 6.3.3 and 6.3.6 Cases referred to: R. v Cho[2001] QCA 196 (FAA) R v. LR [2005] QCA 368, Keane JA (FAA)
COUNSEL:	1 February 2006 Mr J. Greggery for the Crown Mr H. Walters and Mr W. Pennell for the Accused 16 and 24 February 2006 Mr R. English (solicitor) for the Crown Mr H. Walters for the Accused
SOLICITORS:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Arthur Browne and Associates for the Accused

HIS HONOUR: Lester Kenneth Parkinson is charged with two offences, both alleged to have been committed on the 26th of November 2004 at Palm Island. The first alleges that he and others, being riotously assembled together, unlawfully began to destroy a police station. The second alleges that he and others wilfully and unlawfully set fire to the building housing the Palm Island Police Station.
The defence has objected to the admissibility of an interview between police and Parkinson conducted on the 1st of December 2004 at the Palm Island Police Barracks which were then being used as a temporary police station, on the basis that it was not voluntary and, alternatively, that it should be excluded in the exercise of the discretion.
Parkinson is an Aboriginal aged 28. He was born in Townsville, but has lived on Palm Island for most of his life. He is unemployed and I doubt he could ever hold down meaningful employment.
He has been examined by Ms Renee McAllister, a psychologist, and she has provided a report, Exhibit 10. Parkinson's family background is characterised by extreme alcohol abuse and probable neglect. Most of his schooling was on Palm Island. He completed grade 10, but obviously did not pass it. From the age of 12 in grade seven he rarely attended school due to substance abuse. He said he was addicted to drugs, (marijuana, petrol and liquid paper) and lacked interest in schooling. At the age of 15 he stopped sniffing petrol and started injecting speed…

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 –Parkinson

Details

AGLC: R –v –Parkinson [2006] QDC 57
Case: [2006] QDC 57
Decision Date: 10 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parkinson involved the defendant, Mr Parkinson, who was charged with criminal offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of a police interview conducted with the defendant, who is an Aboriginal person, and the alleged non-compliance with specific statutory and procedural requirements designed to protect individuals of special needs during police interviews. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court. The court was required to determine whether the police interview with the defendant was conducted in accordance with the relevant legal frameworks and whether any non-compliance was significant enough to warrant the exclusion of the evidence obtained during the interview.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court included whether the police failed to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements outlined in sections 249(1) and 251 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, as well as sections 34(2), 36(5), and 36(6) of the Responsibilities Code and sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of the Operational Procedures Manual. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the police should have arranged for a support person to attend the interview and whether the cumulative effect of these non-compliances warranted the exclusion of the interview evidence under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.

The court found that the police had indeed failed to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements designed to protect individuals of special needs during police interviews. It was established that the police should have arranged for a support person to be present during the interview with the defendant, which they did not do. The court concluded that these non-compliances had a cumulative effect, leading to a significant breach of the defendant’s rights. Consequently, the court decided to exclude the police interview as evidence in the proceedings. The court's decision was based on the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedures to safeguard the rights of individuals of special needs and to ensure the integrity of the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Police interview excluded.

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.