R v Pettit

The case of R v Pettit involved the issue of whether evidence obtained during a search of premises in Glenorchy should be admitted in court, given that the search was conducted without proper compliance with the relevant legislation. The matter was before the court to determine the admissibility of the evidence under section 138 of the relevant legislation, which provides guidelines for the admissibility of evidence obtained improperly or illegally. The defendant, Pettit, contested the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that it was obtained in breach of the law.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence obtained during the search was obtained improperly or illegally, and if so, whether the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in such a manner. The court had to consider the factors set out in section 138(3) to determine whether the evidence should be admitted. These factors included the probative value and importance of the evidence, the nature of the offence and subject matter of the proceedings, the gravity of the impropriety or contravention, whether it was deliberate or reckless, and whether it was contrary to a right recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The court found that the evidence obtained during the search was indeed obtained improperly, or in breach of an Australian law, or in consequence of an impropriety. As a result, the evidence was not to be admitted on any trial unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the undesirability of admitting evidence obtained in such a manner. The court considered the factors set out in section 138(3) and found that the evidence had significant probative value and was of considerable importance in the proceedings. However, the court held that the impropriety or contravention was deliberate and contrary to a right recognised by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a result, the court found that the undesirability of admitting the evidence outweighed the desirability of doing so.

The court ordered that the evidence obtained during the search of the premises at 42 Anfield Street, Glenorchy be excluded from any trial. This decision has significant implications for the prosecution's case, as the excluded evidence was of considerable importance and probative value. The court's decision highlights the importance of complying with relevant legislation when executing search warrants and obtaining evidence.