R v Peirson - [2014] QSC 134

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Peirson [2014] QSC 134

PARTIES:

R

(Respondent)

v

MICHAEL JAMES PEIRSON

(Applicant)

FILE NO:

BS 34 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 May 2014; written submissions filed 28 May 2014

JUDGE:

Douglas J

ORDER:

Rule that the evidence of the seizure of the mobile phone and the evidence obtained as a result of its having been taken from Mr Peirson, including evidence from witnesses who have been approached for and provided statements about his dealings with them on the basis of the information contained in the mobile phone, is admissible at his trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant exited a taxi and was detained by police officers for possessing an opened alcohol container – where the police officer observed the applicant displaying indicia typical of drug use – where the police officer searched the applicant and found a mobile phone containing drug related text messages – where the police officer then activated a recording device and gave the applicant the standard warnings – where the balance of the encounter was recorded – whether the police officer could have possessed a reasonable suspicion – whether, if there was no such reasonable suspicion, judicial discretion would allow for the admission of the evidence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 29, s 30, s 415(2)(a), s 423

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered

COUNSEL:

P Callaghan SC for the applicant
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

The issue

Mr Peirson is charged with drug trafficking. The evidence against him of that charge derives from a mobile phone seized from him by police on 14 August 2012 when he emerged from a maxi taxi in Fortitude Valley as one of a group of young people some of whom at least, including him, were said to be in possession of open containers of alcoholic drinks.

The issue for determination is whether the mobile phone was legally searched by the police officer who spoke to him that evening pursuant to s 29 and s 30 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) and, if not, whether I should exclude the evidence obtained directly and indirectly from the inspection of the telephone. The relevant parts of s 29 and s 30 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act permitting an officer to search anything in the possession of a person detained required the officer to reasonably suspect that the person had something that may be an unlawful dangerous drug or that may be evidence of the commission…

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 Peirson

Details

AGLC: R v Peirson [2014] QSC 134
Case: [2014] QSC 134
Decision Date: 19 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peirson involved a dispute about the admissibility of evidence obtained during a police encounter with the applicant. The applicant was detained by police officers after exiting a taxi and found to be in possession of an opened alcohol container. The police officer noticed signs consistent with drug use and subsequently searched the applicant, discovering a mobile phone with drug-related text messages. The officer activated a recording device and provided the standard warnings before continuing the interaction, which was entirely recorded. The central issue before the court was whether the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify the actions taken and, if not, whether the court's discretion allowed for the admission of the evidence obtained.

The court considered whether the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to detain the applicant and conduct a search. The officer's observations and the presence of the opened alcohol container were evaluated to determine if they warranted suspicion of illegal activity. The court also examined the conduct of the police during the interaction, including the activation of the recording device and the warnings provided to the applicant. Ultimately, the court found that the police officer did have a reasonable suspicion based on the circumstances present. Consequently, the evidence obtained during the encounter, including the mobile phone and its contents, was deemed admissible at the applicant's trial.

In summary, the court determined that the police officer's actions were justified by a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, allowing for the admissibility of the evidence. The applicant's challenge to the evidence's admissibility was rejected, and the court concluded that the evidence obtained from the mobile phone and the subsequent witness statements could be used in the trial. The court's decision underscored the importance of reasonable suspicion in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained during police encounters.

Orders

Orders of the court

Rule that the evidence of the seizure of the mobile phone and the evidence obtained as a result of its having been taken from Mr Peirson, including evidence from witnesses who have been approached for and provided statements about his dealings with them on the basis of the information contained in the mobile phone, is admissible at his trial.

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 Peirson [2014] QSC 134
PARTIES:	R (Respondent) v MICHAEL JAMES PEIRSON (Applicant)
FILE NO:	BS 34 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 May 2014; written submissions filed 28 May 2014
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Rule that the evidence of the seizure of the mobile phone and the evidence obtained as a result of its having been taken from Mr Peirson, including evidence from witnesses who have been approached for and provided statements about his dealings with them on the basis of the information contained in the mobile phone, is admissible at his trial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant exited a taxi and was detained by police officers for possessing an opened alcohol container – where the police officer observed the applicant displaying indicia typical of drug use – where the police officer searched the applicant and found a mobile phone containing drug related text messages – where the police officer then activated a recording device and gave the applicant the standard warnings – where the balance of the encounter was recorded – whether the police officer could have possessed a reasonable suspicion – whether, if there was no such reasonable suspicion, judicial discretion would allow for the admission of the evidence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 29, s 30, s 415(2)(a), s 423 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered
COUNSEL:	P Callaghan SC for the applicant P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent