R v Terry Peter Lehmann - [2024] SADC 96

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TERRY PETER LEHMANN
[2024] SADC 96
Reasons for Ruling of her Honour Judge Sutcliffe
8 August 2024
EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - VOIR DIRE
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND RECORD OF INTERVIEW
Rule 39 application to exclude evidence of the seizure of the accused's Samsung mobile phone and the accused's record of interview.
Held: application refused.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 1C, 3E, 3G, 3H, 3P, 3Z, 3ZS, 3ZR, 23F, 23G and 23S; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) ss 74D, 79A and 81; Police Act 1998 (SA) ss 59 and 61, referred to.
Ghamrawi v The Queen [2019] SASCFC 108; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; Smethurst v Commissioner of Police [2020] HCA 14; The State of South Australia v Crossley [2020] SASCFC 128; R v Moham, Chaarani & Moukhaiber (Ruling 2) [2019] VSC 72; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; Thomas v The King [2024] SASCA 51; Young v The King [2024] SASCA 47; R v Golija [2017] SASCFC 61; Middlin-Hannah v the Queen [2020] SASCFC 112; Police v Grozev [2006] SASC 353; Lindsay v The King [2022] SASCA 138, applied.

R v TERRY PETER LEHMANN
[2024] SADC 96

Introduction

This is an application by the accused for the exclusion of evidence at his trial.
The accused seeks an order excluding evidence obtained as a result of the seizure of a Samsung mobile phone, and an order that the accused’s record of interview be excluded as evidence. Other orders are sought that are not dealt with in this ruling, as submissions on those grounds have not yet been heard.
The grounds of the application, as supplemented by written submissions filed on 23 May 2023 are:
That the seizure of the phone/contents of the phone be excluded as evidence to be led before the jury:
1.Federal Agent Brown used unnecessary force to seize the phone, amounting to an unlawful assault in seizing the phone contrary to s3G of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (“the Act”).
2.Agent Brown failed to advise the applicant in a timely manner that he had a warrant to search the premises and seize the items, contrary to s3H and s3Z of the Act.
3.Brown failed to specifically advise the applicant that he was seizing the phone pursuant to a warrant, contrary to s3H and 3Z of the Act.
4.Agent Brown failed to provide the applicant with his rights pursuant to s79A of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) or sections 23F and 23G of the Act. prior to being questioned, including before being asked a question regarding his passcode.
The exclusion of the record of interview between Agent Brown and the applicant is sought on the grounds that Agent Brown failed to advise the applicant of his rights in a timely manner, and that the conduct of police rendered the questioning unfair.
Affidavits were tendered, including affidavits of Federal Agent…

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 Terry Peter Lehmann

Details

AGLC: R v Terry Peter Lehmann [2024] SADC 96
Case: [2024] SADC 96
Decision Date: 8 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Terry Peter Lehmann, the court was presented with issues surrounding the admissibility of evidence obtained under questionable circumstances. Lehmann, the respondent, was facing charges related to illegal activities and was contesting the validity of evidence seized from his person and premises. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the evidence should be excluded from the trial on the grounds that it was obtained in breach of legal protocols.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from Lehmann's search and subsequent recording of an interview should be excluded due to alleged breaches in procedural fairness. The respondent argued that the search warrant was improperly executed, and the recording of the interview was not conducted in accordance with legal standards. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the evidence was lawfully obtained and should be admitted. The court had to navigate the delicate balance between upholding the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that justice is served by considering the evidence presented.

The court carefully examined the circumstances of the search and the conditions under which the interview was recorded. It considered the established legal principles regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through potentially unlawful means. The court concluded that while there were procedural irregularities, they did not fundamentally taint the evidence to the extent that it should be excluded. The court found that the evidence, although obtained under questionable circumstances, was nonetheless admissible as it did not contravene the core tenets of fairness and legality. The court's decision was grounded in a nuanced understanding of the balance between procedural safeguards and the pursuit of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained from the search and the interview recording would be admitted in the trial against Lehmann. The court's ruling allowed the prosecution to proceed with the case, ensuring that the evidence could be considered by the jury in determining the respondent's guilt or innocence. The decision underscored the importance of procedural compliance while also recognising the practical realities of law enforcement and the administration of justice.

Orders