R v THOMPSON - [2017] SADC 142

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v THOMPSON
[2017] SADC 142
Reasons for Ruling of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
15 December 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE - PARTICULAR CASES
The accused has been charged on information with four counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, unlawful possession, possessing a firearm without a licence possessing an unregistered firearm and failing to secure a firearm and ammunition. The charges arise out of a search of the accused’s vehicle and his home address. The accused has applied under Rule 49 of the District Court Criminal Rules for orders that the evidence of the two searches be excluded from evidence in his trial on the ground that the search and seizure in each case was unlawful.
Held:
1. The initial search of the vehicle was unlawful.
2.The second search of the accused’s house was based solely on the initial unlawful search and therefore tainted by the unlawfulness of the initial search.
3.The evidence of both searches ought to be excluded in the exercise of the discretion.
District Court Criminal Rules Rule 49; Australian Road Rules Reg. 208; Road Traffic Act 1961 s40H; Controlled Substances Act 1984 s56(6); s52(9), referred to.
R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; R v Nguyen [2015] SASFC 7; R v Bainbridge [1999] NZCA 180; R v Eggen & Eggen-Zeytoun [2016] SADC 26; R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391; R v Golja [2017] SASFC 61, considered.

R v THOMPSON
[2017] SADC 142

The accused has been charged on information with four counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, unlawful possession, possessing a firearm without a licence, possessing an unregistered firearm and failing to secure a firearm and ammunition. The charges arise out of a search of the accused’s vehicle and his home address.
The accused has applied under Rule 49 of the District Court Criminal Rules for orders that the evidence of the two searches be excluded from evidence in his trial on the ground that the search and seizure in each case was unlawful. Specifically he seeks exclusion of:
·all evidence and items seized by the police on the 16^th September 2016 from a white Mitsubishi Utility (SA) XRF 761 (“the first search”); and
·all evidence and items seized by the police on the 16^th September 2016 following with execution of a General Search Warrant at 140 Rowley Road Aldinga Beach (“the second search”)
The Evidence
Two police officers gave evidence on the voir dire; Senior Constables Whyatt and Struthers. Their evidence, in brief, was that at about 11am on the 16^th September 2016, they were on patrol in uniform in an unmarked police vehicle. They drove down Jerome Street, Morphett Vale in order to observe a house at number 14 which was of interest to police because of a past connection…

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 THOMPSON

Details

AGLC: R v Thompson [2017] SADC 142
Case: [2017] SADC 142
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Thompson, the respondent was charged with possession of a dangerous drug with intent to supply. The dispute arose from the admissibility of evidence obtained through an illegal search. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around whether the evidence obtained through the illegal search should be admitted or excluded under the discretionary power of the court, particularly considering the impact on the fairness of the proceedings and the integrity of the judicial process.

The court considered the principles surrounding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, focusing on the balance between the need to exclude evidence obtained in breach of legal rights and the broader public interest in ensuring that justice is served. The court also examined the potential impact of admitting such evidence on the fairness of the trial and the integrity of the judicial process. The respondent argued that the evidence should be excluded on the basis that it was obtained in violation of their legal rights, while the prosecution contended that the evidence was crucial and its exclusion would undermine the fairness of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that the evidence should be excluded. The court held that the illegal search significantly undermined the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused. The court emphasised that the exclusionary rule serves to deter unlawful police conduct and protect the rights of the accused. It was determined that the prejudicial effect of admitting the evidence outweighed any probative value it might have had.

The court made an order that the evidence obtained through the illegal search be excluded from the trial. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting individual rights, even in the pursuit of justice. The court's ruling reinforced the principle that the integrity of the judicial process is paramount, and that illegally obtained evidence should not be used to secure a conviction.

Orders