CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - ARREST AND DETENTION
Application to exclude evidence of drug offending on the basis it was obtained after the applicant and his vehicle had been unlawfully detained. On 3 June 2021, police detained the applicant, who was suspected to be engaged in drug dealing, by parking an unmarked police car bonnet to bonnet with the applicant’s vehicle, with its emergency lights activated. A female alighted from the applicant’s car and produced two deal bags containing a substance believed to be drugs, which she indicated she had just purchased from the applicant. The applicant was subsequently asked to get out of his vehicle. He was asked if he had any identification and whether he had drugs on him. In response he produced multiple deal bags later found to contain a total of 2.12g of heroin. The applicant made frank admissions at the scene to trafficking heroin and reiterated those admissions during a subsequent interview.
The issue to be determined was whether, at the time the detention commenced, the police had a reasonable suspicion that any substance or equipment that would afford evidence of an offence against the CSA was in the vehicle. The asserted basis of the suspicion was that on 26 May 2021, the applicant had twice attended at the Mansfield Park Hotel car park in his vehicle whereupon a male and female had, on separate occasions, got into the front passenger seat of the applicant’s car for short periods of time. Nothing was known of the identity of those people, or the applicant for that matter, and nothing resembling an exchange of items for money was seen to take place. Police had no information suggesting that the applicant, his vehicle, or the male or female, had any association with drugs. On 3 June 2021, and prior to the detention, another female was seen to get into the front passenger seat of the applicant’s vehicle. Again, nothing resembling an exchange of an item for money was observed and police had no information as to the identity of the female nor anything to suggest an association with drugs.
Held: The detention of the applicant and his vehicle was unlawful. The suspicion genuinely held by the detaining police officer was not reasonably held. In circumstances where the police had no information linking the applicant, his vehicle or any of the other people seen to get into his car with drugs, a suspicion that the applicant was dealing drugs was a product of mere idle wondering. The production of the ‘deal bags’ by the female on Killara Street and her response to the police inquiry occurred after the detention had already been effected and could not be taken into account in assessing the reasonableness of the suspicion said to be held. Accordingly, the pre-conditions to the exercise of…
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 Tram
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Tram [2023] SADC 105
Case
[2023] SADC 105
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant was arrested and detained following the execution of a search warrant. The defendant sought an order quashing the evidence obtained by police from the search. The court had to determine whether the warrant was validly executed, whether the detention was lawful, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded. The court held that the warrant was properly executed and that the detention was lawful. The court held that the evidence obtained was not inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The court dismissed the application to quash the evidence.
The defendant sought to challenge the legality of their arrest and detention, arguing that the police did not have a warrant or a lawful reason to arrest and detain them. The court had to determine whether the police had a warrant and whether they had a lawful reason to arrest and detain the defendant. The court held that the police had a valid warrant and that the defendant was lawfully arrested and detained. The court held that the defendant's argument was without merit and dismissed the application.