R v Richards - [2019] SADC 124

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RICHARDS
[2019] SADC 124
Reasons for Ruling of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
28 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
The Applicant, Nathan Richards, has been charged on Information with the offence of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug on 9 March 2018 at Port Augusta. The charge arises out of a search of a backpack located next to the Applicant who was a passenger in a taxi. The Applicant has applied under Rule 49 of the District Criminal Court Rules for orders that the evidence of the search be excluded from evidence in his trial on the basis that the search and seizure was unlawful. It is said that the evidence should be excluded for unfairness to the applicant and/or on public policy grounds.
Held:
1. That the decision to stop the taxi was not lawful.
2. That, in all of the circumstances, the prosecution not be permitted to lead evidence of the results of the search conducted on 9 March 2018.
District Court Rules R49; Road Traffic Act 1961 s40H(1)(a), s47E(2); Controlled Substances Act 1984 s52(1), s52(6), s52(9); Summary Offences Act 1953 s68(1)(a), referred to.
Police v Moukachar (2010) 107 SASR 450; R v Dam & Nguyen (2015) 123 SASR 511; R v Kola (2002) 83 SASR 477 ; Armstrong v R (1989) 53 SASR 25; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 422 ; R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391 ; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; R v Golja [2017] SASCFC 61; R v Nguyen [2015] SASCFC 7 , applied.

R v RICHARDS
[2019] SADC 124

The Applicant, Nathan Richards, has been charged on Information with the offence of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug on 9 March 2018 at Port Augusta. The charge arises out of a search of a backpack located next to the Applicant who was a passenger in a taxi. The Applicant has applied under Rule 49 of the District Criminal Court Rules for orders that the evidence of the search be excluded from evidence in his trial on the basis that the search and seizure was unlawful. It is said that the evidence should be excluded for unfairness to the applicant and/or on public policy grounds.
For the reasons that follow I grant the application and I will order that the prosecution not be permitted to lead evidence of the results of the search conducted on 9 March 2018.
Background
Three police officers gave evidence on the voir dire: Constable Bagshaw, Constable Fawcett and Sergeant Hall. In addition a number of exhibits were tendered by consent.
Around 2.00am on 9 March 2018, Constables Fawcett and Bagshaw were on mobile uniform patrol in Port Augusta. They were stationary in their patrol car at a service station on the…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2019] SADC 124
Case: [2019] SADC 124
Decision Date: 28 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Richards involved the appellant, Richards, who was convicted of various criminal charges. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence that was unfairly prejudicial or improperly obtained. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in admitting the contested evidence and whether the evidence was so unfair or improperly obtained as to warrant exclusion. The appellant argued that the evidence in question had a tendency to prejudice the jury against him, and was either obtained in a manner that infringed his legal rights or was otherwise inadmissible. The prosecution contended that the evidence was both relevant and properly obtained, and should have been admitted to assist the jury in determining the facts of the case.

The court considered the principles of judicial discretion in admitting evidence, and noted that the trial judge has a broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, provided that it is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also considered the nature of the evidence in question, and whether it was obtained in a manner that infringed the appellant's legal rights or was otherwise inadmissible. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the contested evidence, and that the evidence was not so unfair or improperly obtained as to warrant exclusion. The court held that the evidence was relevant to the issues in the case, and did not have an undue prejudicial effect on the jury.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's convictions were upheld. The court made no further orders.

Orders