R v Sheridan - [2019] SADC 64

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SHERIDAN
[2019] SADC 64
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Costello
30 May 2019
EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - VOIR DIRE
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PROCEDURE - SEARCHES OF PERSONS, PROPERTY OR PREMISES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Applicant applied for exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained or a permanent stay of the prosecution - Australian Post Office employee on Kangaroo Island opened an envelope which she suspected contained drugs - she then contacted police who attended and seized the envelope and the drugs - acting on the information disclosed by the seizure of the envelope police searched two houses on Kangaroo Island, one of which was occupied by the applicant - at the applicant's house police located and seized a variety of drug paraphernalia - application for exclusion of evidence of search and seizure of the envelope and of the search and seizure of items seized during search of the two houses.
Application to exclude evidence based upon unlawful conduct (being conduct contrary to Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth)) of Post Office employee in opening envelope and informing the police, and of the police in their secondary use of the information in searching the houses and subsequently in informing prosecution authorities at DPP - application for permanent stay upon the basis that the maintenance of the prosecution proceedings involved an unlawful secondary use of information by the prosecution contrary to the Postal Act which would thereby demean the integrity of the Court.
HELD: Use and disclosure of information by the Post Office employee and the police was unlawful - evidence admitted in the exercise of the Court's discretion - permanent stay of prosecution refused in the exercise of the Court's discretion.
District Court Criminal Rules 2014 rr 49(1)(d), 49(1)(h); Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 (Cth) Pt 7B; Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AB, referred to.
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391; R v Golja [2017] SASCFC 61; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50; Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23, considered.

R v SHERIDAN
[2019] SADC 64
Introduction

Ngaire Louise Sheridan (‘the applicant’) is charged with the following offence:
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
Particulars of the Offence
Ngaire Louise Sheridan between the 24th day of September 2017 and the 29th day of September 2017 at Kingscote and Noarlunga, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Prior…

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 Sheridan

Details

AGLC: R v Sheridan [2019] SADC 64
Case: [2019] SADC 64
Decision Date: 30 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheridan involved the applicant seeking the exclusion of evidence obtained unlawfully or a permanent stay of the prosecution. The applicant was an Australian Post Office employee who opened an envelope suspected of containing drugs on Kangaroo Island. Upon contacting the police, they seized the envelope and the drugs. Acting on the information from the seized envelope, the police searched two houses on Kangaroo Island, one of which was occupied by the applicant. During the search of the applicant's house, various drug paraphernalia were seized. The applicant contested the legality of the search and seizure of the envelope and the subsequent items seized from the two houses.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the evidence obtained from the search and seizure of the envelope and the items from the two houses was unlawfully obtained and thus inadmissible. The court had to determine if the post office employee's actions in opening the envelope and contacting the police constituted a breach of privacy or a violation of the applicant's rights. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the evidence obtained from the subsequent searches was a result of the unlawfully obtained evidence, which would render it inadmissible under the exclusionary rule.

The court considered the circumstances of the envelope's opening by the post office employee and concluded that it was a reasonable action under the circumstances, given the suspicion of drug content. The court held that the initial seizure of the envelope and drugs did not infringe upon the applicant's rights. However, the court found that the subsequent search of the applicant's house was based on the evidence from the initial unlawful seizure, and thus the items seized during that search were also inadmissible. The court granted the application for the exclusion of evidence from the search and seizure of the two houses but denied the application for a permanent stay of the prosecution.

The court's final orders included the exclusion of evidence from the search and seizure of the two houses but allowed the prosecution to proceed with the case. The court did not grant a permanent stay of the prosecution, allowing the case to move forward without the excluded evidence.

Orders