R v Stamatov - [2016] QSC 280

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stamatov [2016] QSC 280

PARTIES:

R

(respondent)

v

STAMATOV, Alexander

(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC Indictment No 5 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2016

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

The ruling of the Court is that:

1. The defendant’s application for an order that parts of a record of interview conducted on 20 May 2015 be ruled inadmissible is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – where the defendant applies for a ruling that parts of a record of interview are inadmissible – where there are references in the record of interview to the exercise of a search warrant – where there are references to text messages sent to the defendant sourcing various dangerous drugs – where the defendant submits the prosecution’s case is that the defendant was trafficking in steroids – where the defendant submits the references to acts preparatory to supply of dangerous drugs other than steroids are prejudicial and not relevant – whether the evidence is inadmissible

COUNSEL:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, s 129(1)

Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367, considered
Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558, cited
R v Harper [2015] QCA 273, cited
R v Kelly [2005] QCA 103, cited
R v Nguyen [1999] 1 VR 457, considered
R v Nguyen; R v Le [2007] QCA 162, cited
R v Duong [2015] QCA 170, cited

P Davis QC with J Jones for the applicant

J Phillips for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Potts Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

McMeekin J: Alexander Stamatov is charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs contrary to s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). He applies pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) for a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of certain parts of a record of interview conducted between himself and two detectives on 20 May 2015.

The parties have supplied a schedule (Ex 3) which refers to the disputed passages by Item number and then summarises the competing arguments. For convenience I shall use the Item numbers to refer to the disputed passages.

Item 3

The objection relates to two things. One is the officer’s reference to “drug related” items and matters. The Crown concedes the point. The second relates to the officer introducing the topic to be discussed – text messages on a mobile phone that the officers had seized in a search – in these terms: “We attended [an address] where you were present …in the search warrant that I …executed… in relation to that items were seized… a mobile phone.”

The objection is to the reference to the search warrant. The complaint is lack of relevance. The submission made at 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 Stamatov

Details

AGLC: R v Stamatov [2016] QSC 280
Case: [2016] QSC 280
Decision Date: 1 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, Stamatov, contesting the admissibility of certain parts of a record of interview conducted on 20 May 2015. The nature of the dispute is whether references within the record of interview, including details about the exercise of a search warrant and text messages allegedly sourcing various dangerous drugs, should be excluded as prejudicial and irrelevant to the prosecution's case that the defendant was trafficking in steroids.

The court had to determine whether the references to acts preparatory to the supply of dangerous drugs other than steroids were indeed prejudicial and not relevant to the prosecution’s case. The defendant argued that such evidence could unfairly prejudice the jury against him by suggesting a broader involvement in drug trafficking activities, which was not directly related to the specific charge of trafficking in steroids. The court needed to balance the probative value of the evidence against its potential to cause undue prejudice.

In evaluating the application, the court considered the relevance of the evidence to the prosecution’s case and the potential for prejudice. The court found that the evidence, while potentially prejudicial, was relevant to the prosecution's overall case against the defendant. The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. Therefore, the application by the defendant to exclude parts of the record of interview was refused.

The ruling resulted in the court upholding the admissibility of the contested parts of the record of interview. The court did not order the exclusion of the evidence in question, thereby allowing the prosecution to present the full record during the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The ruling of the Court is that:

1. The defendant’s application for an order that parts of a record of interview conducted on 20 May 2015 be ruled inadmissible is refused.

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 Stamatov [2016] QSC 280
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v STAMATOV, Alexander (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC Indictment No 5 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Pre-Trial Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	1 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	24 November 2016
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	The ruling of the Court is that: 1. The defendant’s application for an order that parts of a record of interview conducted on 20 May 2015 be ruled inadmissible is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – where the defendant applies for a ruling that parts of a record of interview are inadmissible – where there are references in the record of interview to the exercise of a search warrant – where there are references to text messages sent to the defendant sourcing various dangerous drugs – where the defendant submits the prosecution’s case is that the defendant was trafficking in steroids – where the defendant submits the references to acts preparatory to supply of dangerous drugs other than steroids are prejudicial and not relevant – whether the evidence is inadmissible
COUNSEL:	Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5, s 129(1) Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367, considered Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558, cited R v Harper [2015] QCA 273, cited R v Kelly [2005] QCA 103, cited R v Nguyen [1999] 1 VR 457, considered R v Nguyen; R v Le [2007] QCA 162, cited R v Duong [2015] QCA 170, cited P Davis QC with J Jones for the applicant J Phillips for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Potts Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent