R v Robinson - [2016] SADC 46

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ROBINSON
[2016] SADC 46
Ruling of His Honour Judge Chivell
26 April 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
The accused has applied under Rule 49 of the District Court Rules for an order that the prosecution not be permitted to lead evidence relating to the search of a vehicle on the basis that the search was unlawful.
Application dismissed.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 52(9), referred to.
R v Nguyen [2015] SASCFC 7; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; R v Chapman [2001] SASC 113, considered.

R v ROBINSON
[2016] SADC 46

On 28 March 2014, Mr Robinson was driving a vehicle north on the Augusta Highway at Merriton, near Crystal Brook. Senior Constable First Grade Garden was driving his marked police vehicle in the opposite direction.
Officer Garden noticed that the vehicle Mr Robinson was driving had a cracked windscreen, so he performed a U-turn and indicated to Mr Robinson to pull over. Mr Robinson did so, and alighted from the vehicle.
After some conversation with Mr Robinson, Officer Garden decided to search the vehicle. He did so, and found 57.52 grams of a substance, containing 77% pure methylamphetamine, in a plastic bottle.
This is the conduct which the prosecution says constitutes count 1 on the information.
Mr Robinson says that the evidence of the fruits of the search should be excluded because the search was unlawful. He says that it was unlawful because it was not authorised by s 52(9) of the Controlled Substances Act. That section requires that an officer have a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that there was something in the vehicle that would ‘afford evidence of an offence against this Act’.
Officer Garden insists that he did have a reasonable suspicion about that.
Officer Garden said that he had no suspicion in relation to controlled drug offences when he first stopped Mr Robinson’s vehicle. However, he said his suspicion became aroused because:
·Mr Robinson immediately alighted from the vehicle. Officer Garden said that this was very unusual. He was immediately put ‘on guard’ – he said that in his experience, there was a risk that either the driver was angry or had something to hide;
·Mr Robinson appeared ‘nervous’. Officer Garden was unable to articulate any further details about this – he relied only on his long experience as an operational police officer;
·Officer Garden suspected that Mr Robinson was a drug user from his appearance. He referred to his gaunt and pallid appearance and his general demeanour.
Officer Garden said that he conversed with Mr Robinson about the broken windscreen. Mr Robinson said that he had driven to Adelaide to get it fixed. He was unsuccessful, so he was driving it back to Port Augusta. Officer Garden regarded this explanation as odd – Mr Robinson could easily have had the window fixed in Port Augusta…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2016] SADC 46
Case: [2016] SADC 46
Decision Date: 26 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the defendant against his conviction on charges of aggravated assault. The defendant, Robinson, appealed on the basis that the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence that was either unfairly prejudicial or improperly obtained. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge correctly exercised their discretion to admit or exclude the challenged evidence. The court was required to consider whether the evidence was unfairly prejudicial under section 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), and whether it was improperly obtained, thus making it inadmissible under the common law principle of excluding evidence obtained through unfair or oppressive conduct. The court also considered whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence. The court found that the evidence, while prejudicial, was relevant to the central issue of the case and had significant probative value. The court further determined that the evidence was not improperly obtained, as there was no evidence of oppressive conduct or breach of legal rights during its procurement. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence, as the prejudicial effect was not undue in the circumstances of the case, and the probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders