R v Purdon

The case of R v Purdon involved the applicant, who was charged with possession of unlawful dangerous drugs. The applicant was observed by police entering a vehicle after leaving an address known to police. The drugs were discovered as a result of a search of the applicant after the vehicle he was a passenger in had been intercepted by police. The police interception of the vehicle was not undertaken for any of the prescribed purposes under s 60(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The applicant sought an order that the evidence obtained as a result of the search be excluded.

The legal issues before the court were whether the police had a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had possession of unlawful dangerous drugs pursuant to ss 29, 31 and 32 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), and whether the search by police of the applicant that led to the police knowledge of the unlawful dangerous drugs was lawful. The court had to consider the Bunning v Cross discretion to exclude evidence obtained improperly. The court found that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had possession of unlawful dangerous drugs and that the search was not lawful. The court held that the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the applicant was obtained through reliance on unlawfully obtained evidence. The court found that the public interest in the protection of citizens from unlawful police conduct outweighed the public interest in the conviction of the applicant.

The court granted the application and excluded the evidence obtained as a result of the search of the applicant on 28 February 2015 from evidence permitted to be led in any trial on charges that, on that day, the applicant unlawfully had possession of dangerous drugs. The court exercised its discretion under s 138 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) to exclude the evidence. The court found that the evidence was obtained through reliance on unlawfully obtained evidence and that the public interest in the protection of citizens from unlawful police conduct outweighed the public interest in the conviction of the applicant.