R v Philp - [2015] QDC 262

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Philp [2015] QDC 262

PARTIES:

R

v

HARLEY PHILP
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Dalby

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons delivered on 6 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Dalby

HEARING DATE:

6 October 2015

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS- whether inducement given- whether admissions were made- whether confession was unfairly obtained

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) s 10

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 130

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss 422, 423

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54

R v Clark, ex parte Attorney‑General [1999] QCA 438

R vDoyle, ex parte Attorney‑General [1987] 2 Qd R 732

R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435

R v Q [2003] QCA 421

COUNSEL:

Mr I. Munsie for the defendant

Mr D. Jones for the crown

SOLICITORS:

Macdonald law for the defendant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown

This is an application by the defendant, Mr Philp, for the exclusion of a record of interview conducted between he and the police between 1.30 p.m. and 2.14 p.m. at the Tara Police Station on 30 October 2014.

The defence firstly submits that it cannot be proved that the interview was voluntarily obtained. It relies on s 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) and/or the common law. Of course, the onus is on the prosecution to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the confession was voluntary.

Secondly, or alternatively, the defence submits in the exercise of the fairness discretion (s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q)), the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the interview, the police acted in breach of ss 422, 423 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q), and in those circumstances, bearing in mind his being affected by alcohol, the interview should be excluded. Of course, with that application the onus is on the defence to establish that.

With respect to the matter, the defendant gave evidence that prior to going to the police station, when he was at the property where he was located, Officer Ford said to him something like, “You can come to the police station of your own free will or we can get authority to arrest you and take you in for questioning”. He was then interviewed at the police station.

It is common ground that the Crown is relying on this interview because lies were told in it. A number of lies are relied upon, not the least of which is that the defendant had not gone to the Orchard Road property for two to three years and he was certainly not there the previous night. The Crown case is that he was there and assaulted the complainants.

Aside, though, from the lies, it could be said there are some admissions, certainly with respect to count 1. Count 1 involves an incident at a local club. The defendant…

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 Philp

Details

AGLC: R v Philp [2015] QDC 262
Case: [2015] QDC 262
Decision Date: 6 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Philp was heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Philp, was convicted of murder and appealed the decision on the basis that his confession was improperly obtained and should not have been admitted as evidence. The appeal hinged on whether the police had improperly induced Philp to confess and whether the admissions he made were reliable.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Philp's admissions were obtained through improper inducements and whether the confession was therefore unfairly obtained. The court had to consider the circumstances under which the confession was made, including the nature and duration of any police interviews, the physical and psychological conditions of Philp at the time, and whether Philp was adequately informed of his rights. The court also had to determine whether Philp's admissions were voluntary and reliable.

The High Court held that Philp's confession was not improperly induced and was therefore properly admitted as evidence. The court found that the police had conducted themselves appropriately throughout the interview process, ensuring that Philp was aware of his rights and that his admissions were made voluntarily. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that Philp had made admissions both before and after the alleged inducement, and concluded that the confession was reliable and properly obtained. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming Philp's conviction.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application by Philp, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The High Court determined that the process by which the confession was obtained did not render it inadmissible and that the evidence was properly considered in the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Philp [2015] QDC 262
PARTIES:	R v HARLEY PHILP (defendant)
FILE NO/S:
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Dalby
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore reasons delivered on 6 October 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Dalby
HEARING DATE:	6 October 2015
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS- whether inducement given- whether admissions were made- whether confession was unfairly obtained Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) s 10 Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss 422, 423 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 R v Clark, ex parte Attorney‑General [1999] QCA 438 R vDoyle, ex parte Attorney‑General [1987] 2 Qd R 732 R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435 R v Q [2003] QCA 421
COUNSEL:	Mr I. Munsie for the defendant Mr D. Jones for the crown
SOLICITORS:	Macdonald law for the defendant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown