Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Duggan
23 March 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Application for the exclusion of evidence of search of a vehicle which resulted in the finding of drugs – whether there was a reasonable basis for the police officer’s suspicion that the accused was in possession of goods that constituted an offence – whether the reasonable suspicion was founded upon inaccurate and incorrect information.
Held: Application to exclude evidence of the search of the vehicle refused – the police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion that a search of the accused’s vehicle would reveal the presence of a substance or equipment relevant to the commission of an offence under s 52(9) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) – the suspicion may be grounded upon matters which the police officer has observed and circumstances which have been reported – the fact that one of the matters reported to the police officer was inaccurate did not detract from the reasonableness of the suspicion – information obtained from an apparently reliable source.
Criminal: Reasons for ruling on admissibility of evidence
DUGGAN J: The accused is charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of cocaine on 27 August 2009 at Yunta.
According to the prosecution case, police officers searched the accused’s vehicle on the date of the alleged offence and uncovered a block of compressed powder weighing 998.3 grams and containing cocaine weighing 730.6 grams.
An application has been made on behalf of the accused for the exclusion of the evidence relating to the search of the vehicle on the grounds that the search was illegal.
At the time of the alleged offence, Brevet Sergeant Allen was the officer‑in‑charge of the Mannahill Police Station. At about 2.00pm on 27 August 2009 he was patrolling alone in a police vehicle along the Barrier Highway. He was travelling from Broken Hill to Mannahill when he received information over the police radio that a blue Ford Falcon sedan was travelling along the Barrier Highway at an excessive speed. According to the report, the Falcon sedan was travelling in…
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 Rogers
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Rogers [2011] SASC 40
Case
[2011] SASC 40
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Rogers, the appellant was convicted of drug trafficking offences following the discovery of illicit substances in his vehicle during a police search. The primary dispute in this case centred on the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the search. The appellant argued that the search was unlawful and that the evidence obtained should be excluded due to inaccuracies in the information provided to the police. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the police officer had a reasonable basis for suspecting that the appellant was in possession of goods that constituted an offence, and if that suspicion was founded upon accurate and correct information. The court was required to determine whether the information provided to the police was sufficiently reliable to justify the suspicion and subsequent search.
The court held that the application to exclude the evidence was to be refused. It was determined that the police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion based on both observed circumstances and reported information. The court emphasised that a reasonable suspicion could be founded upon matters observed by the officer as well as reported circumstances. While it was noted that one of the reported matters was inaccurate, this did not undermine the overall reasonableness of the suspicion. The court found that the information was obtained from a seemingly reliable source, which was sufficient to justify the search. Therefore, the evidence obtained from the search was deemed admissible.
As a result of this decision, the appellant's conviction for drug trafficking offences was upheld. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that police officers are permitted to act on reasonable suspicion, even when some information may be inaccurate, provided the overall suspicion is well-founded.