R v Purnell - [2012] QSC 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Purnell [2012] QSC 60

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
WAYNE ROBERT PURNELL

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 553/10

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2011; 30 January 2012

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDER:

Orders made excluding various admissions and phone calls

CATCHWORDS:

Failure to warn in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; failure to digitally record questioning in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; whether lies showing a consciousness of guilt amount to an admission within the meaning of s 436(3) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; whether or not an admission by conduct is within s 436(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; compliance with s 437 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; admissibility of records pursuant to s 439 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; evidence to establish common unlawful enterprise; conversations between one party to common unlawful enterprise and third parties admissible where calls made as part of common unlawful enterprise

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)

Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87
Bunning v Cross (1977-1978) 141 CLR 54
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193
Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321
R v Kingston [2008] QCA 193
R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133
R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435
R v McKay [1965] Qd R 240
R v McMillan [2010] QSC 309
R v Omar (1991) 58 A Crim R 139
R v Walbank [1996] 1 Qd R 78
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for the applicant/defendant
S Cupina for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Richardson McGhie for the applicant/defendant
The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

The defendant is charged with trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis. This was an application made pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code (Qld).Four matters were raised by the applicant/defendant. At the hearing of the matter I made orders in relation to the Crown’s giving particulars and a ruling that evidence could not be led from Detective Senior Sergeant Gough in terms of paragraphs 9, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 27 of his statement, which is exhibit 2 before me, on the basis that this evidence is not evidence of facts, but inadmissible opinion as to the meaning of conversations. Two matters remain. Objection is taken in relation to the Crown leading evidence of answers given by the defendant to police at the time of, and subsequently to, his arrest on 4 January 2008, and to the Crown leading evidence that the defendant was carrying $10,000 cash at the time of that arrest. The objection by the defence is based on failures of the arresting officer to comply with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA).The second objection is to the Crown leading evidence of intercepted…

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 Purnell

Details

AGLC: R v Purnell [2012] QSC 60
Case: [2012] QSC 60
Decision Date: 23 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Purnell was before the court where the defendant, Purnell, was charged with various criminal offences. The primary issues raised concerned the compliance with statutory requirements under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), including the failure to warn the defendant in accordance with the Act, the failure to digitally record questioning, and the admissibility of evidence obtained in contravention of these statutory provisions. Additionally, the court examined whether lies told by the defendant, which demonstrated a consciousness of guilt, constituted an admission under s 436(3) of the Act, and whether an admission by conduct was recognised under the same provision.

The court needed to determine whether the defendant's admissions and the recorded phone calls were admissible under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The central issue was whether the statutory warnings and recording requirements were properly followed, and if not, what impact this had on the admissibility of the evidence. The court also had to decide whether the evidence obtained from the phone calls, which were part of a common unlawful enterprise, could be used against the defendant. The court examined relevant sections of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), as well as relevant case law, to resolve these issues.

After reviewing the statutory provisions and relevant case law, the court found that the police had not complied with the statutory requirements for warnings and digital recording. The court held that the evidence obtained in breach of these statutory provisions was inadmissible. Additionally, the court ruled that the lies told by the defendant did not amount to an admission within the meaning of s 436(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. The court also found that admissions by conduct were not recognised under the same provision. Consequently, the court ordered that various admissions and phone calls be excluded from evidence.

The court's final orders were to exclude the various admissions and phone calls that were obtained in breach of the statutory provisions under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act. These orders effectively removed significant pieces of evidence that the prosecution intended to use against the defendant, potentially impacting the outcome of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders made excluding various admissions and phone calls

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 Purnell [2012] QSC 60
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v WAYNE ROBERT PURNELL
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 553/10
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	23 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2011; 30 January 2012
JUDGE:	Dalton J
ORDER:	Orders made excluding various admissions and phone calls
CATCHWORDS:	Failure to warn in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; failure to digitally record questioning in accordance with the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; whether lies showing a consciousness of guilt amount to an admission within the meaning of s 436(3) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; whether or not an admission by conduct is within s 436(3) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; compliance with s 437 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; admissibility of records pursuant to s 439 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act; evidence to establish common unlawful enterprise; conversations between one party to common unlawful enterprise and third parties admissible where calls made as part of common unlawful enterprise Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87 Bunning v Cross (1977-1978) 141 CLR 54 Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Kingston [2008] QCA 193 R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133 R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435 R v McKay [1965] Qd R 240 R v McMillan [2010] QSC 309 R v Omar (1991) 58 A Crim R 139 R v Walbank [1996] 1 Qd R 78 Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1
COUNSEL:	P E Smith for the applicant/defendant S Cupina for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Richardson McGhie for the applicant/defendant The Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent