R v Poynter - [2006] QDC 19

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Poynter [2006] QDC 019
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN Against Richard James POYNTER
FILE NO:	12/ 06
PROCEEDINGS:	Application for pre-trial directions.
DELIVERED ON:	2 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATES	25, 27and 30 January 2006
JUDGE:	CF Wall QC
ORDER:	Police interview excluded.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE – application to exclude police interview with Aboriginal acc – arrest involving armed police – forced entry into acc’s home – interview conducted shortly after arrest while acc was handcuffed – acc person of special need as defined in Operational Procedures Manual, Queensland Police Service – non-compliance with ss. 249(1) and 251(2) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and ss34(1), 36(3) and 37(4) and (5) Responsibilities Code – no attempt by police to contact a lawyer or Legal Aid – wh support person compensated acc’s special need – cumulative effect of non-compliance with statutory provisions and circumstances of the arrest Legislation referred to: Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss. 4(e), 5, 249 and 251 Responsibilities Code (Schedule 10, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000), ss. 34, 36, 37(4) and (5) Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894, s.10 Operational Procedures Manual, Queensland Police Service, ss. 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.3.6 Cases referred to: R. v Cho, unreported, Court of Appeal [2001] QCA 196 (FAA)
COUNSEL:	Mr J. Greggery for the Crown Mr G. McGuire for the Accused
SOLICITORS:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Anderson Telford Lawyers for the Accused

HIS HONOUR: Richard James Poynter is charged that on the 26th day of November 2004 at Palm Island he and others, being riotously assembled together, unlawfully began to destroy a police station, being the Palm Island Police Station.
Objection is taken to the admissibility of a police interview with Poynter which took place at the Palm Island State School on Saturday the 27th of November 2004. The school was then being used as a temporary police station. The defence submits that the interview was not voluntary and in the alternative it should be excluded in the exercise of the discretion.
Poynter was arrested at the Wotton house in Gribble Street, Palm Island, at about 6.15 p.m. on the 27th of November. Twenty-four police officers attended the house. They included 13 members of the Special Emergency Response Team (SERT), members of the Public Safety Response Team (PSRT), and Detective Sergeant Darren Robinson, the officer in charge of the Palm Island CIB. The SERT officers were armed with automatic machine guns and wore black clothing, gloves and balaclavas with goggles. They made a forced entry to the house through an upstairs locked door. See the photograph, Exhibit 6. Sergeant Robinson said the door was unlocked and opened by him, but I think he is mistaken about that. From the bathroom Sergeant Robinson could hear the shower running. The bathroom door was locked. Entry to the room was forced by SERT officers who, with Sergeant Robinson, entered the room. The shower curtain may then have been ripped…

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 Poynter

Details

AGLC: R v Poynter [2006] QDC 19
Case: [2006] QDC 19
Decision Date: 2 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Poynter, the appellant faced criminal charges following a police interview conducted shortly after his arrest. The appellant, an Aboriginal individual, was arrested in his home by armed police, who forced entry. The police interview occurred while the appellant was handcuffed, and there was no attempt to contact a lawyer or Legal Aid. The appellant argued that the police failed to comply with relevant statutory provisions, including sections of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Responsibilities Code, which pertain to persons of special needs. The court was tasked with determining whether the police interview should be excluded from evidence due to these alleged non-compliances.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the police complied with the statutory obligations set out in the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act and the Responsibilities Code. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the police reasonably failed to provide a support person to compensate for the appellant's special needs during the interview. Additionally, the court had to consider the cumulative effect of the non-compliances and the circumstances surrounding the arrest, including the forced entry and the conditions under which the interview took place.

The court found that the police failed to comply with the statutory provisions designed to protect the rights of individuals with special needs. The appellant's status as an Aboriginal person was a significant factor in the court's consideration of his special needs. The court determined that the police did not make any attempt to contact a lawyer or Legal Aid, which was a further breach of the statutory requirements. The cumulative effect of these non-compliances, coupled with the forceful nature of the arrest, led the court to conclude that the interview was obtained in a manner that was oppressive or unjust. Consequently, the court excluded the police interview from evidence.

The court ordered that the police interview be excluded from evidence in the criminal proceedings against the appellant. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions designed to protect the rights of individuals, particularly those with special needs, during police interactions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Police interview excluded.

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.