R v PJ

Case [2006] ACTSC 37

THE QUEEN v PJ
[2006] ACTSC 37 (2 May 2006)

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence on voir dire – search warrant – seizure of computer and computer storage devices – offence of possession of child pornography.

Crimes Act 1900, s 65, s 194, s 200
Evidence Act 1995, s 138
Human Rights Act 2004, s 30(1)

Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69
Palmer v Kizon [1999] WASC 160
R v A [2000] SASC 51
R v Cornwell [2003] NSWSC 97
R v Stankovich [2004] ACTSC 93
Adamic [2000] QSC 402, (2000) 117 A Crim R 332
Edwards (unreported, Queensland Court of Appeal, No 35 of 1998, 25 August 1998)
Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308
Plenty v Dillon (1991) 171 CLR 635
Wendo v R (1963) 109 CLR 559
Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257

Criminal Law Investigation and Procedure Victoria (LBC 2000, Freckleton ed) (2.5.480)

No SCC 157 of 2004

Judge:     Connolly J  
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:     2 May 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No SCC 157 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

v

PJ

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  2 May 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The following evidence be admissible at trial:

(a)Record of interview between the accused and Constable Burgess of 3 September 2003.

(b)The items in a black bag seized during the search of the accused’s premises on 29 August 2003 including the computer discs.

(c)Evidence as to the contents of the hard drive contained within the computer seized on 29 August 2003.

  1. The accused was committed to trial in this Court on 19 July 2004 on the charge that he knowingly had in his possession photographs, video images, DVDs and written stories depicting or otherwise representing young persons engaged in acts of a sexual nature, being a depiction or representation that would offend a reasonable adult person.  An order suppressing the accused’s name was made by the learned Magistrate on the sole but proper basis that as the accused had school age children they would be identified by any publicity flowing from the publication of his name.  That order continues in force.  The matter was set down for trial in this Court in July 2005, but those dates were vacated on a joint application by the Crown and the defence due to the stated need for certain expert computer evidence to be obtained.

  1. The matter was relisted for trial on 27 March 2006.  At a directions hearing on 21 March 2006 counsel for the accused indicated that there would be a challenge to the search warrant and to the admissibility of a taped record of interview between the accused and police.  On 27 March the accused pleaded not guilty to a single count that between the 4th day of July 2003 and the 29th day of August 2003 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he knowingly possessed computer images, video files and compact discs depicting young…

Continue reading R v PJ

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v PJ [2006] ACTSC 37
Case
[2006] ACTSC 37
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v PJ is before the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the defendant, PJ, facing charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute centres on the admissibility of certain evidence that the prosecution seeks to introduce at the trial. The defence has objected to the inclusion of this evidence, arguing it breaches the principles of natural justice and could prejudice the jury against the defendant. The court is tasked with determining whether the evidence in question is relevant, reliable, and should be permitted for the jury's consideration.

The primary legal issue before the court is whether the evidence, which includes statements made by the defendant during a police interview, is admissible under the rules of evidence. The defence argues that the statements were coerced and therefore inadmissible. Additionally, the defence contends that the evidence should be excluded on the grounds that it may unfairly prejudice the jury, potentially leading to an unjust outcome. The prosecution maintains that the evidence is both relevant and reliable, and should be admitted as it directly pertains to the facts of the case and supports their case against the defendant.

In its reasoning, the court carefully examined the circumstances under which the statements were obtained, assessing whether they were indeed coerced. The court considered the principles of fairness and natural justice, ensuring that the defendant’s rights were not compromised. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the evidence was indeed relevant and reliable, and did not unfairly prejudice the defendant. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence is admissible and should be presented to the jury at trial. The court's decision was grounded in the legal principles of admissibility, relevance, and fairness, ensuring that the trial would proceed in a manner that upholds the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The following evidence be admissible at 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.