R v Turner - [2010] QSC 473

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turner [2010] QSC 473

PARTIES:

WILLIAM JOSEPH TURNER
(applicant)

MICHAEL JAMES WOOD
(applicant)
v
THE QUEEN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS1478 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 July 2010

JUDGE:

Ann Lyons J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicants made an application for a pre-trial ruling pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) for the exclusion of certain evidence – where evidence was obtained by police after a search warrant was executed at a residence where both applicants were staying – where applicants allege that the evidence was obtained as a result of “structural damage to the building” – where applicants claim that because “structural damage” was caused whilst obtaining the evidence an application for a search warrant had to be made in accordance with s 150(4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) prior to searching the premises – where no such application was made – whether “structural damage” was done to the building – whether the application should granted

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Penalties and Sentences Act 2000 (Qld), ss 150(2), 150(4), 157(1) and 157(3)

Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Windown Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 224
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Carbure Pty Ltd v Brile Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 272
Di Franceso v Blantrix Pty Ltd [2004] NSWLEC 669
Hampson v Clyne (1967) 86 WN (NSW) 321
R v Christensen [2005] QSC 279
R v Day & Anor [2008] QSC 358
R v Koning [2001] QSC 131

COUNSEL:

C Chowdhury for the applicant Turner
D Walsh for the applicant Wood
J Robson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers for the applicant Turner
AW Bale and Son Solicitors for the applicant Wood
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

LYONS JANN :

Background

William Joseph Turner (Turner) and Michael James Woods (Woods) are both charged on Indictment 1478/2009 with unlawfully producing the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, the unlawful possession of a prohibited combination of items and possession of things used in connection with the crime of producing a dangerous drug. All of those offences are alleged to have occurred on 11 November 2008.

On 11 November 2008 police conducted a search of a house at 115 Nursery Avenue, Runcorn. Woods rented the property and both Turner and Woods lived there. Police had previously been to the house searching for drugs and an illicit laboratory.

A search warrant for the search of these premises had been obtained from a Justice of the Peace by Detective Senior Constable Dennien on 10 November 2008 pursuant to s 150(2) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (PPRA).

During the search a built-in cupboard in the nature of a wall unit with shelves and shutter doors was located in a downstairs room…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: R v Turner [2010] QSC 473
Case: [2010] QSC 473
Decision Date: 29 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turner, the applicants sought a pre-trial ruling under section 590AA of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) to exclude certain evidence obtained by police after executing a search warrant at a residence where the applicants were staying. The applicants alleged that the evidence was obtained as a result of "structural damage to the building" and that the search should not have proceeded without an application being made under section 150(4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). The central issue before the court was whether "structural damage" had indeed occurred during the search, and if the absence of an application under section 150(4) rendered the evidence inadmissible.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the search and the extent of the alleged "structural damage." It considered whether the damage was significant enough to warrant the mandatory application under section 150(4). The court also assessed the relevance of the evidence in question and its potential impact on the applicants' right to a fair trial. Ultimately, the court concluded that the alleged "structural damage" did not meet the threshold required to necessitate an application under section 150(4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld). Therefore, the application for the exclusion of evidence was refused.

The court's reasoning was grounded in a meticulous examination of the statutory requirements and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that the evidence obtained was admissible as there was no procedural breach that warranted exclusion. Consequently, the application for the exclusion of the evidence was dismissed, allowing the prosecution to use the evidence in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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 Turner [2010] QSC 473
PARTIES:	WILLIAM JOSEPH TURNER (applicant) MICHAEL JAMES WOOD (applicant) v THE QUEEN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS1478 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 July 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 July 2010
JUDGE:	Ann Lyons J
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – PROSECUTION – OTHER MATTERS – where applicants made an application for a pre-trial ruling pursuant to s 590AA Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) for the exclusion of certain evidence – where evidence was obtained by police after a search warrant was executed at a residence where both applicants were staying – where applicants allege that the evidence was obtained as a result of “structural damage to the building” – where applicants claim that because “structural damage” was caused whilst obtaining the evidence an application for a search warrant had to be made in accordance with s 150(4) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) prior to searching the premises – where no such application was made – whether “structural damage” was done to the building – whether the application should granted Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Penalties and Sentences Act 2000 (Qld), ss 150(2), 150(4), 157(1) and 157(3) Alamdo Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Windown Furnishings (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 224 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Carbure Pty Ltd v Brile Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 272 Di Franceso v Blantrix Pty Ltd [2004] NSWLEC 669 Hampson v Clyne (1967) 86 WN (NSW) 321 R v Christensen [2005] QSC 279 R v Day & Anor [2008] QSC 358 R v Koning [2001] QSC 131
COUNSEL:	C Chowdhury for the applicant Turner D Walsh for the applicant Wood J Robson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers for the applicant Turner AW Bale and Son Solicitors for the applicant Wood Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent