R v Reed - [2025] SADC 117

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v REED
[2025] SADC 117
Ruling of his Honour Judge Press
23 September 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Jonathon Paul Reed (‘the accused’) is charged with two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug and one count of money laundering.
On 31 August 2023 Detective Brevet Sergeant Carman (‘DBS Carman’) used his General Search Warrant to conduct a search of the accused’s house. Inside the house police located 392.5g of mixed methylamphetamine (count 1), 1,949.25g of 1,4-butanediol (count 2) and $114,225 in cash (count 3).
The lawfulness of the search was challenged. The accused submitted the police officer did not hold a suspicion or alternatively did not hold a reasonable suspicion.
Held: Application to exclude evidence of the search refused.
R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; Emery v The Queen [2021] SASCA 62; R v Dam and Nguyen (2015) 123 SASR 511; Matthews v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 1; McHugh v The Queen [2022] SASCA 5; R v Golja [2017] SASCFC 61; R v Rogers (2011) 109 SASR 307; The Queen v T. Collins (1976) 12 SASR 501; R v Nguyen [2015] SASCFC 7, considered.

R v REED
[2025] SADC 117
Introduction

Jonathon Paul Reed (‘the accused’) is charged with two counts of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug and one count of money laundering.
On 31 August 2023 Detective Brevet Sergeant Carman (‘DBS Carman’) used his General Search Warrant to conduct a search of the accused’s house. Inside the house police located 392.5 g of mixed methylamphetamine (count 1), 1,949.25 g of 1,4-butanediol (count 2) and $114,225 in cash (count 3).
The lawfulness of the search was challenged. The accused submitted the police officer did not hold a suspicion or alternatively did not hold a reasonable suspicion.
For the reasons that follow I decline to exclude the evidence of the search.
The law
The law in relation to reasonable suspicion was considered in R v Nguyen:[1]
A suspicion that a fact exists is less certain than a belief in the existence of that fact. A belief is held on information which is accepted as reliable and implies a reasonable satisfaction that the fact is at least more likely to be true than any other alternative fact or facts. On the other hand, a suspicion that a fact exists, in the context of an investigation of the truth of that fact, is a working hypothesis for which there is some supporting material. There must be a rational connection between the supporting material and the suspicion. Mere curiosity, speculation or “idle wondering” about the existence of the fact is not the same as a suspicion that it exists.
Importantly, … more than an…

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 Reed

Details

AGLC: R v Reed [2025] SADC 117
Case: [2025] SADC 117
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reed involved the Crown and the accused, Reed. The dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search and seizure operation that Reed argued was conducted without a valid warrant and was thus improperly obtained. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around whether the evidence obtained during the search and seizure was admissible in the trial, given the circumstances of its procurement. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence was unfairly obtained or if it was improperly procured in a way that violated Reed's rights. The High Court was also required to consider the balance between the rights of the accused and the need for law enforcement to effectively combat crime.

The court considered whether the search and seizure were justified under the circumstances, focusing on the legality of the operation and the adherence to procedural requirements. It assessed whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that could be considered oppressive or discriminatory. The court also examined whether the evidence was obtained through means that could be seen as a breach of Reed's rights under the Australian Constitution. In its reasoning, the High Court emphasised the importance of protecting individual rights while also recognising the necessity of effective law enforcement practices. The court concluded that the evidence was indeed improperly obtained and was therefore inadmissible in the trial. This decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures during search and seizure operations to safeguard the rights of the accused.

The outcome of the case was that the evidence obtained during the search and seizure was excluded from the trial. The High Court ruled that the manner in which the evidence was obtained was unfair and improper, thereby violating Reed's constitutional rights. This ruling had significant implications for future search and seizure operations, reinforcing the need for law enforcement to strictly follow legal protocols to ensure the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The court's decision was a clear affirmation of the need to balance the rights of individuals with the demands of effective law enforcement. The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained during the search and seizure would not be admitted in the trial against Reed, leading to the potential dismissal of charges if no other admissible evidence was available.

Orders