Legal Research
Cases
R v S, DF

R v S, DF

Case [2024] SADC 2 12 January 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Interlocutory Application)
R v S, DF
[2024] SADC 2
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Judge Stretton
12 January 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE - PARTICULAR CASES
Acting on two Crime Stoppers reports from the public and an intelligence report that the accused was involved with outlaw motorcycles gangs and drug offending, and was currently selling handguns illegally, Police purported to form a suspicion on reasonable grounds under s 57(9) of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA) and searched his residential property. They did not locate firearms but did find drugs, whereupon police exercised a General Search Warrant to seize the drugs. The accused applied to exclude the evidence on the basis that the information police possessed was insufficient to base a suspicion on reasonable grounds justifying a search pursuant to either s 57(9) of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA) or s 67(4) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA).
HELD:
1. The material available to police did constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion pursuant to both the Firearms Act and the Summary Offences Act.
2. The search conducted by police pursuant to the Firearms Act was lawful.
3. The evidence obtained by way of the search was lawfully obtained and will be admitted at trial.
Firearms Act 2015 (SA) s 57(9); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 67; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(1), referred to.
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, applied.
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; R v Rockford [2015] SASCFC 51; R v Golia [2017] SASCFC 61; R v Rogers (2011) 19 SASR 307; Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454; Lee v R (1998) 195 CLR 594; R v Trabolsi [2018] SASCFC 57; R v Van Wyk [2018] SASCFC 138, considered.

R v S, DF
[2024] SADC 2
The charge

The accused is charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of cannabis pursuant to s 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 at his Mawson Lakes house on 13 October 2021.
The prosecution case
The prosecution alleges that a large quantity of cannabis, together with further indicia of trafficking in the form of 22 separate vacuum sealed bags of the drug, empty bags containing drug residue, a vacuum seal machine, scales, a ‘tick list’ and $3625 in cash were located at the Mawson Lakes house owned and occupied by the accused on 13 October 2021. It is further alleged that the accused’s DNA and fingerprints were variously located on the bags containing the drug residue.[1]
[1] Prosecution Case Statement FDN 11.
The defence position
The accused has pled not guilty, and 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 S, DF

Details

AGLC: R v S, DF [2024] SADC 2
Case: [2024] SADC 2
Decision Date: 12 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v S, DF, the defendant, who was charged with possession of dangerous drugs, appealed against the trial judge's decision to admit evidence that was obtained in breach of his rights under the Australian Constitution. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's rights should be excluded from the trial. The court had to determine the extent to which the common law doctrine of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence should apply in cases where the rights guaranteed under the Australian Constitution have been breached.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases and the balance between the protection of an individual's rights and the need to ensure that the guilty are convicted and punished. The High Court held that the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence is not an absolute rule but rather a discretionary power exercised by the court to ensure the administration of justice is not undermined by the use of evidence obtained in breach of the law. The court emphasised that the primary consideration in exercising this discretion is the fairness of the trial, and whether the admission of the evidence would be detrimental to the accused's right to a fair trial. The court found that in this case, the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's rights and its admission would have a significant adverse effect on the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence.

As a result of the exclusion of the evidence, the prosecution was unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the defendant's appeal was upheld. The conviction was quashed, and the defendant was acquitted. The court ordered that the defendant be released from custody, and the charges against him be dropped. The High Court's decision in this case reinforces the importance of upholding the rights of the accused and the need for the courts to carefully consider the admissibility of evidence obtained in breach of the law.

Orders