R v Salotti - [2019] SADC 171

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SALOTTI
[2019] SADC 171
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
22 November 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Application to exclude evidence on the basis of a 'pretext' Road Traffic Act stop, dismissed as unproven.
No basis is substantiated to suggest an illegal search on private property was undertaken.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(3) and 52(9); District Court Criminal Rules 2014 (SA) rr 49(1)(h) and 51(2); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 40V(2)(a); R v Dam and Nguyen (2015) 123 SASR 511; R v Prinse (1998) 196 LSJS 267; R v Arthur [2018] SADC 116; Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, referred to.
R v Phong Hoang Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; Question of Law Reserved (No.3 of 1998) (1998) 71 SASR 223; Halliday v Nevill (1984) 155 CLR 1; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391, applied.
Coleman v Zanker (1991) 58 SASR 7; R v Chapman (2001) 79 SASR 342; R v Nguyen (2015) 248 A Crim R 398, distinguished.

R v SALOTTI
[2019] SADC 171
Contents
An application for the exclusion of evidence
Brief overview of the events
The application for exclusion
The power of search
Reasonable suspicion affording evidence of a drug offence
A sufficient basis to search?
Unlawful private property intrusion
The discretion to exclude
Orders
An application for the exclusion of evidence

The defendant Katherine Salotti brings the within pre-trial motion to exclude evidence of the seizure of drugs located near a motor vehicle in which she was a passenger.
This seizure led to a joint charge with the driver of the vehicle for that on 18 December 2017 at Craigmore they trafficked in the controlled drug methylamphetamine contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). The co-accused pleaded guilty and presently awaits sentence. This motion is grounded on the contention that the search of the vehicle and the surrounds was illegal and that the detention of both her and the driver on private property adjacent to the area in which the vehicle was parked, was conducted unlawfully on that property.
Brief overview of the events
At just after midnight on Monday 18 December 2017, Brevet Sergeant Marsh of Elizabeth police was on mobile patrol duties in the company of Probationary Constable Lloyd, tasked with the duty of making a ‘bail check’ at 33 Kakuna Crescent Craigmore, a northern suburb of Adelaide. He told the court a ‘bail check’ arises when a person is on bail for an offence, the conditions of which involve a ‘curfew’, so that police on night shift are regularly assigned to ‘do a bail curfew check’ in respect of bailed persons, to confirm they are resident at the bailed address during curfew times.[1] His intention was to knock 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 Salotti

Details

AGLC: R v Salotti [2019] SADC 171
Case: [2019] SADC 171
Decision Date: 22 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Salotti was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Salotti, stood accused of a serious criminal offence. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during the investigation, which Salotti's legal team argued was unfairly prejudicial or obtained in an improper manner. The Crown, in turn, contended that the evidence was crucial to proving the defendant's guilt and should be admitted without restriction.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the judicial discretion exercised in determining whether evidence should be admitted or excluded. The court had to assess whether the evidence was unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, as per the common law principles of fairness, or whether it was obtained in a manner that breached legal protocols, thereby making it inadmissible. These questions necessitated a careful consideration of both the potential prejudice to the defendant and the integrity of the evidence-gathering process.

The court deliberated on these issues, weighing the importance of the evidence in the context of the Crown's case against the principles of fairness and legality. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the evidence in question was indeed unfairly prejudicial and, in part, improperly obtained. As a result, the court ruled that the evidence should be excluded from the trial. This decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and protecting the rights of the accused, even in the face of compelling evidence against them.

The final orders of the court were that the contested evidence would not be admitted during the trial of Salotti. This decision significantly impacted the Crown's case, potentially affecting the outcome of the trial. The ruling highlighted the court's role in ensuring that the administration of justice is not compromised by the admission of prejudicial or improperly obtained evidence.

Orders