R v TAYLOR - [2020] SADC 35

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TAYLOR
[2020] SADC 35
Ruling of Her Honour Judge Fuller
3 April 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - PROCEEDS OF CRIME, MONEY LAUNDERING AND RELATED OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES
Accused charged with one count of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug, two counts of Money Laundering – the methylamphetamine and cash the subject of all counts was found by police in the course of searching the accused who was a passenger in a motor vehicle followed by police – whether police were acting lawfully when making requests of the driver of the motor vehicle – whether police officer who searched accused held requisite suspicion – held actions of police and subsequent search lawful.
District Court Criminal Rules 2014 (SA) r 49(1)(h); Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32 (3); 52; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 138 (1); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) ss 40H; 40J; 40K; 40V; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 96; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) ss 68; 74AB, referred to.
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; Hussien v Chong Fook Cam [1970] AC 942; Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; R v Neal (2017) 128 SASR 20; R v Dam & Nguyen [2015] SASCFC 131, considered.

R v TAYLOR
[2020] SADC 35

By application pursuant to Rule 49 (1) (h) of the District Court Criminal Rules 2014 the accused sought orders excluding evidence to be led at her trial. I refuse the application. The following are my reasons for so ruling.
The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 32 (3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) and two counts of money laundering contrary to s 138 (1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
Rule 49 Application
The accused made application pursuant to Rule 49 (1)(h) for evidence to be excluded as follows:
1All evidence obtained as a result of the search of the accused’s person.
2All evidence obtained as a result of the search of the motor vehicle bearing SA registration S322BOD.
The grounds relied upon were, respectively:
1The accused was detained without lawful authority prior to any search.
2The vehicle was detained without lawful authority prior to any search.
Voir Dire
A voir dire hearing was held on 20 and 23 March 2020. At the commencement of the voir dire, counsel for the accused said that the application ‘revolves around a challenge to the search that was conducted of [the accused]’. Defence counsel accepted that if the search of the accused was lawful then it followed that the search of the vehicle was also lawful. However, defence counsel contended that if the search of the accused was declared to be…

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 TAYLOR

Details

AGLC: R v TAYLOR [2020] SADC 35
Case: [2020] SADC 35
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, and two counts of money laundering, following the discovery of methylamphetamine and cash during a police search. The search occurred while the accused was a passenger in a vehicle followed by police. The central issues before the court were the legality of the police actions when requesting information from the driver and whether the police officer conducting the search of the accused held the necessary suspicion to justify the search.

The court examined the legality of the police interactions with the driver of the vehicle, determining that the officers acted within their lawful authority to request information. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the police officer conducting the search of the accused held a requisite suspicion to justify the search. The court concluded that the police officer's actions and the subsequent search were lawful, as they were based on reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused was involved in criminal activity.

Consequently, the court upheld the admissibility of the evidence obtained during the search, finding that the police had acted lawfully in both their interactions with the driver and the search of the accused. The accused's challenge to the legality of the evidence was therefore unsuccessful.

The court's decision affirmed the admissibility of the evidence, and the case proceeded with the evidence in question being used against the accused. The final outcome of the case, including any convictions or sentencing, is not detailed in the extract.

Orders