R v Thompson (No 3)

The case of R v Thompson (No 3) involved the accused, Andrew Francis Thompson, who faced charges of aggravated burglary and forcible confinement. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained through a search conducted under a warrant. The matter was brought before the court, which had to decide on the legal issues concerning the evidence's procurement and admissibility. The court was required to consider whether the evidence obtained during the search was improperly or illegally obtained and if it should be excluded under the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). Additionally, the court had to determine if the evidence was prejudicial and whether it should be excluded under the same Act. The court also had to address the issue of whether the search under the warrant was valid and if the warrant was in force at the time of the search.

The court's reasoning involved a thorough examination of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) and the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court found that the evidence in question should not be excluded despite its improper or illegal procurement, as its probative value outweighed the importance of the rules breached. The court considered the gravity of the impropriety, whether it was deliberate or reckless, and the difficulty in obtaining the evidence without impropriety. The court also determined that the evidence in question was not to be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). Regarding the prejudicial nature of the evidence, the court found that the issue raised in a pre-trial application was not addressed on appeal. However, the court recommended that the trial judge consider giving the jury certain directions to mitigate any potential unfair prejudice. The court concluded that the evidence should be allowed to be submitted under section 137 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). Furthermore, the court examined the validity of the search under the warrant and found that the warrant was not in force when the search was conducted, rendering the execution of the warrant unlawful.

In light of the findings, the court made several orders. Firstly, the court noted the undertaking of the Crown not to submit that the letters seized during the search constituted an admission that the accused engaged in the conduct which constituted the offences. Secondly, the application by Application in Proceedings dated 2 September 2016 was dismissed. Lastly, the court requested that the judge before whom the trial of Andrew Francis Thompson was to take place consider giving the jury an express direction that the letters referred to in the first order could not constitute an admission to the commission of the offences.