R v Thomas - [2015] QSC 28

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thomas [2015] QSC 28

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
BRADY JOHNATHAN THOMAS
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC 325 of 2014

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

590AA hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2014

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

The Record of Interview conducted at Kawana Waters Police Station on 23 October 2013 is excluded

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant makes an application for the exclusion of a record of interview at Kawana Waters Police Station pursuant to s 590AA(2)(e) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the record of interview should be excluded on the basis that the applicant’s confessions were not voluntary – whether the record of interview should be excluded on the basis of unfairness and/or public policy grounds

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 415, 431
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld), schedule 9

Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501
Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177
R v Lee (1959) 82 CLR 133
R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159
Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656

COUNSEL:

D Crews for the applicant
D Jones for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fowler Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

ANN LYONS J:

This is an application by Brady Johnathan Thomas for a ruling pursuant to s 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), that the record of interview which was recorded between him and police on 23 October 2013, be excluded in its entirety (Record of Interview). Mr Thomas is currently charged on a six count indictment with one count of trafficking in the dangerous drugs methamphetamine, cannabis and 3-4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (3-4 MDMA) over a 10 month period from 31 December 2012 to 24 October 2013 and five counts of supplying 3-4 MDMA and cannabis between 21 April 2013 and 24 October 2013.

The application is made on two bases. The first basis is that the Record of Interview should be excluded because the applicant’s confessions were not made voluntarily. The second basis is that even if the confessions are found to be voluntary, and therefore admissible in law, they should be excluded on the basis of unfairness and/or public policy grounds, which involves an exercise of judicial discretion.

Background

In September 2012, Queensland Police commenced an operation targeting the trafficking of dangerous drugs in the Sunshine Coast area. In that operation, Nikolas Karl Bloemers and Daniel Sivyer were the major persons of interest as they were suspected of being involved in the manufacturing and trafficking of dangerous drugs.…

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 Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Thomas [2015] QSC 28
Case: [2015] QSC 28
Decision Date: 20 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Thomas involved the applicant making an application for the exclusion of a record of interview conducted at Kawana Waters Police Station on 23 October 2013. The application was made pursuant to section 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), which allows for the exclusion of evidence if it was obtained in circumstances that render its admission unfair or against public policy. The central issue before the court was whether the record of interview should be excluded because the applicant's confessions were not voluntary, or on the grounds of unfairness and/or public policy.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the assessment of the voluntariness of the applicant's confessions and whether the conduct of the police during the interrogation was fair. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the interview, including any potential breaches of the applicant's rights, to determine if the record of interview should be excluded. The court also had to balance the public interest in admitting evidence against the principles of fairness and public policy.

In its reasoning, the court found that the applicant's confessions were not made voluntarily due to the coercive nature of the police interrogation. The court identified specific instances of police misconduct, including threats and misleading statements, which pressured the applicant into making the confessions. The court concluded that these actions rendered the confessions involuntary. Additionally, the court found that the overall conduct of the police was unfair and against public policy, justifying the exclusion of the record of interview. Consequently, the court ordered the exclusion of the Record of Interview conducted at Kawana Waters Police Station on 23 October 2013.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Record of Interview conducted at Kawana Waters Police Station on 23 October 2013 is excluded

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 Thomas [2015] QSC 28
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v BRADY JOHNATHAN THOMAS (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC 325 of 2014
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	590AA hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 December 2014
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDER:	The Record of Interview conducted at Kawana Waters Police Station on 23 October 2013 is excluded
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant makes an application for the exclusion of a record of interview at Kawana Waters Police Station pursuant to s 590AA(2)(e) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) – whether the record of interview should be excluded on the basis that the applicant’s confessions were not voluntary – whether the record of interview should be excluded on the basis of unfairness and/or public policy grounds Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10 Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), ss 415, 431 Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2012 (Qld), schedule 9 Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257 McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501 Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177 R v Lee (1959) 82 CLR 133 R v Swaffield; Pavic v R (1998) 192 CLR 159 Van der Meer v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 656
COUNSEL:	D Crews for the applicant D Jones for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fowler Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent