Legal Research
Cases
R v Playford

R v Playford

Case [2013] QCA 109 14 May 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Playford [2013] QCA 109

PARTIES:

R
v
PLAYFORD, Gary Allen
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 103 of 2012
SC No 1030 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and White JA concurring as to the order made, Dalton J dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of unlawful wounding – where the appellant made confessional statements to police officers during an interview and re-enactment – where the conduct of the police officers was improper and in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the primary judge found that the confessions were voluntary – where the primary judge found that the confessional evidence should not be excluded on the basis of unfairness or for public policy reasons – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the confessions were voluntary – whether the primary judge ought to have considered the unfairness and public policy discretions separately – whether the judge erred in exercising his discretion not to exclude the confessional statements

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 23(5), s 249, s 250, s 432, s 435
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld), sch 9, s 23

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered
Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited
Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited
Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited
R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited
R v Belford & Bound (2011) 208 A Crim R 256; [2011] QCA 43, cited
R v Dunning; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2007] QCA 176, cited
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, considered
R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited
R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited
R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered
R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396;

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 Playford

Details

AGLC: R v Playford [2013] QCA 109
Case: [2013] QCA 109
Decision Date: 14 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, appealed against his conviction for two counts of murder and one count of unlawful wounding. The evidence against him included confessional statements made during a police interview and a re-enactment. The police conduct during these interactions was found to be improper and in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Despite this, the primary judge concluded that the confessions were voluntary and declined to exclude the confessional evidence on grounds of unfairness or public policy. The appellant argued that the primary judge erred in finding the confessions voluntary and in not considering the unfairness and public policy discretions separately. Additionally, the appellant contended that the judge should have exercised his discretion to exclude the confessional statements.

The court examined whether the primary judge correctly assessed the voluntariness of the confessions, considering the police misconduct. It also evaluated whether the judge should have considered the unfairness and public policy discretions independently. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the primary judge erred in deciding not to exclude the confessional statements. The court found that the primary judge did not err in concluding that the confessions were voluntary, as the police misconduct did not undermine the voluntariness of the statements. The court also determined that the primary judge did not err in declining to exclude the evidence on grounds of unfairness or public policy, as the judge had adequately considered the relevant factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Playford [2013] QCA 109

Most Recent Citation

R v Griffiths [2013] QCA 120

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v Ford
[2017] QSC 205 Para 7

…common law discretion, the emphasis is on fairness to the individual. It is given statutory recognition in s 130 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld).” [25] [2013] QCA 109 at [4].…
R v Healy
[2016] QCA 334 Para 1

…o show that any such error had caused a miscarriage of justice.[20] [19](1936) 55 CLR 499 per Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ at 505. [20] R v Playford [2013] QCA 109; [2013] 2 Qd R 567 at [101].…
R v Jacilla Nerrah Yatta
[2015] QDC 58 Para 1

…ed in order to express judicial disapproval and to deter the use of such unacceptable methods in achieving a conviction.”[37] [37] R v Playford [2013] QCA 109 at [5] per McMurdo P, referring to Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1 at 34 per Dawson J.…
High Court Bulletin
[2014] HCAB 1

…Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Appeal) [2013] QCA 109…
R v Cunniffe
[2013] QSC 330

…ac v Stirling [2007] QCA 112 Churchill Fisheries Export Pty Ltd v Director-General of Conservation [1990] VR 968 R v Playford [2013] QCA 109 Williamson v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572 COUNSEL: J Robson for the Crown E Mac Giolla Ri for the defendant SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Cro…
R v Griffiths
[2013] QCA 120 Para 1

…'s counsel at first instance. It follows that it is an issue which this Court should also consider in this ground of appeal. [1](1950) 82 CLR 133. [2][2013] QCA 109.…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Belford & Bound
[2011] QCA 43 Para 1

…nclusion, that does not entail a conclusion of error. This is one of those cases where judicial minds might well differ.[16] [16] R v Belford & Bound [2011] QCA 43.…
R v Tietie and Wong-Kee
[2011] QSC 166 Para 1

…the vast majority of police officers to conscientiously apply the law in carrying out their wide-ranging, onerous and important powers and duties. [6][2011] QSC 166, [23]-[30], set out by the trial judge in R v Playford and Griffiths , unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, SC No 1030 of 2010, 15 February 2012,…
Tofilau v The Queen
[2007] HCA 39

…98) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39, considered COUNSEL: J R Hunter SC for the appellant M R Byrne SC for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qu…
R v. Dunning ; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2007] QCA 176 Para 1

…constitutes “special reason” will depend on the circumstances of the individual case: R v Dunning; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) .[13] [13][2007] QCA 176, [2], [33].…
R v LR
[2005] QCA 368

…Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, considered R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39, cons…
R v Swaffield
[1998] HCA 1

…v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39, considered COUNSEL: J R Hunter SC for the appellant M R By…
Foster v The Queen
[1993] HCA 80

…1 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited R v Belfo…
Pollard v The Queen
[1992] HCA 69

…ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited R v Belford & Bound (2011) 208 A Crim R 256; [2011] QCA 43, cited R v Dunning; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2007] QCA 176,…
Duke v The Queen
[1989] HCA 1

…R 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992]…
Cleland v The Queen
[1982] HCA 67

…tion 2012 (Qld), sch 9, s 23 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [19…
Duncan v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority and Commonwealth of Australia
[1980] FCA 72

…1978] HCA 22, considered Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA…
Bunning v Cross
[1978] HCA 22

…9, s 250, s 432, s 435 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld), sch 9, s 23 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508…
R v Ireland
[1970] HCA 21

…R 256; [2011] QCA 43, cited R v Dunning; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2007] QCA 176, cited R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, considered R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v…
R v Lee
[1950] HCA 25

…torney-General (Qld) [2007] QCA 176, cited R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, considered R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited Tofilau v T…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40

…80 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited R v Belford & Bound (2011) 208 A Crim R 256; [2011] QCA 43, cited…
House v The King
63 WN 176

…72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited R v Belford & Bound (2011) 208 A Crim R…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld)
10 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
130 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
23(5) 2 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Playford [2013] QCA 109
PARTIES:	R v PLAYFORD, Gary Allen (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 103 of 2012 SC No 1030 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 February 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Dalton J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and White JA concurring as to the order made, Dalton J dissenting
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of unlawful wounding – where the appellant made confessional statements to police officers during an interview and re-enactment – where the conduct of the police officers was improper and in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where the primary judge found that the confessions were voluntary – where the primary judge found that the confessional evidence should not be excluded on the basis of unfairness or for public policy reasons – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the confessions were voluntary – whether the primary judge ought to have considered the unfairness and public policy discretions separately – whether the judge erred in exercising his discretion not to exclude the confessional statements Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 23(5), s 249, s 250, s 432, s 435 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld), sch 9, s 23 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, considered Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited Duke v The Queen (1989) 180 CLR 508; [1989] HCA 1, cited Foster v The Queen (1993) 67 ALJR 550; [1993] HCA 80, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited R v Barker (1978) 19 SASR 448, cited R v Belford & Bound (2011) 208 A Crim R 256; [2011] QCA 43, cited R v Dunning; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2007] QCA 176, cited R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, considered R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435; [2005] QCA 368, cited R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, considered R v Tietie and Wong-Kee [2011] QSC 166, cited Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396;