R v Rockford - [2014] SADC 199

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v ROCKFORD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2014] SADC 199
Reasons for Ruling and Verdict of His Honour Judge Soulio
27 November 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - ENTRY
Accused charged with one count of cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant contrary to s 33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act, one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, contrary to s 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act, and one count of possessing prescribed equipment, contrary to s 33(LA) of the Controlled Substances Act.
The accused issued an application pursuant to Rule 49(1)(H) DCCR, seeking exclusion of all evidence obtained as a result of the search of the property, on the basis that the evidence was unlawfully obtained, because the search of the premises was unlawful. Held – search was unlawful but discretion to exclude evidence not exercised.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 ss 32, 33; Summary Offences Act 1953 ss 52, 68; District Court Criminal Rules 2014 r 49, referred to.
R v Romeo (1982) 30 SASR 243; Halliday v Nevill & Anor (1984) 155 CLR 1; M v AJ (1989) 44 A Crim R 373; Police v Dafov (2008) 102 SASR 8; Kuru v State of New South Wales [2008] HCA 26; Dinan v Brereton [1960] SASR 101; Wheare v Police [2008] SASC 13; Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427; State of New South Wales v Corbett (2007) 230 CLR 606; Bunning v Cross (1977-78) 141 CLR 54; R v Chapman [2001] SASC 113; Pressler v Holzberger (1989) 44 A Crim R 261; R v McKinnon [2007] SADC 132; R v Nguyen [2013] SASCFC 91; R v Cavallaro [2011] SADC 15, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES
Accused elected for trial by judge alone following unsuccessful ruling on application to exclude evidence.
Verdict – Guilty on all three counts.
Juries Act 1927 s 7, referred to.

R v ROCKFORD
[2014] SADC 199

The accused is charged with the offences of cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant, contrary to s 33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (‘CSA’); trafficking a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 32(1) CSA; and possessing prescribed equipment, contrary to s 33LA CSA.
The background to the charges, by way of summary, is that on 13 February 2011 police attended at a number of properties on Lobethal Road, Ashton, after receiving information that the accused was growing cannabis on a property in the area. Police gained access to the accused’s property, before ascertaining that it was his property, by climbing over a gate which was either locked, or had the appearance of being locked. Upon entering the property police noticed a vehicle which they were able to identify as belonging to a person associated with the accused.
Having ascertained that the property was associated with…

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 Rockford

Details

AGLC: R v Rockford [2014] SADC 199
Case: [2014] SADC 199
Decision Date: 27 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rockford came before the High Court. Rockford was charged with various drug-related offences following an incident where police officers executed a search warrant at his residence. Rockford sought to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of the warrant on the grounds that it was obtained in contravention of his rights under the Australian Constitution. The central issue for the Court was whether the police had lawfully executed the warrant and whether any evidence obtained during the search should be excluded as a result of unlawful conduct by the police.

The Court held that the police had acted within the bounds of the law when executing the warrant. The officers had conducted themselves in a manner consistent with the requirements of the law, and had not exceeded the powers granted to them by the warrant. The Court found that the evidence obtained during the search was not tainted by any unlawful conduct on the part of the police, and therefore should not be excluded. The Court held that the police had acted lawfully in executing the warrant and that the evidence obtained during the search was admissible in the trial of Rockford.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed Rockford's appeal and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of Rockford be upheld. The Court held that the evidence obtained during the execution of the search warrant was lawfully obtained and should not be excluded from consideration in the trial of Rockford. The Court found that the police had acted within the bounds of the law, and that the evidence obtained during the search was admissible and could be used against Rockford in the trial of the charges against him.

Orders