Legal Research
Cases
R v Turner (No 14)

R v Turner (No 14)

Case [2001] TASSC 124 2 November 2001

Illegally Obtained Evidence

Public Policy Discretion

Unfairness Discretion

Admissibility of Evidence

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2001] TASSC 124

CITATION: R v Turner (No 14) [2001] TASSC 124

PARTIES:  R
  v
  TURNER, Phillip Bruce

LEE, Mervyn Robin
JANSEN, Cornelius Marinus
COULSTON, Daren Te Ariki Charles
TEDESCO, Antonio

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  320/2000
DELIVERED ON:  2 November 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  23 July - 2 November 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Evidence - Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence - Illegally obtained evidence - Particular cases - Records and returns as to fish catches - Whether discretion available.

Ridgeway v R (1995) 184 CLR 19; R v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; Nicholas v R (1998) 193 CLR 173, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [426]

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction, practice and procedure - Warrants, arrest, search, seizure and incidental powers - Search warrants - Generally - Susceptibility to collateral challenge - Misrepresentation to issuing officer - Matters relevant to trial judge's discretion to exclude evidence.

Murphy v R (1989) 167 CLR 94; Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 5 of 1999) (2000) 76 SASR 356, distinguished.
Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paraggio (1994) 53 FCR 542; Flanagan v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (1995) 60 FCR 149; R v Grassby (1988) 15 NSWLR 109, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [623]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Crown:  M Rozenes QC, K E Read, N Robinson, J Read & I M Arendt
First Accused:  M L Abbott QC & W P Boucaut
Second Accused:  A G Melick SC & B R McTaggart
Third Accused:  P A Dunn QC & J D Edwardson
Fourth Accused:  B J Powell QC & I C Robertson
Fifth Accused:  C J Kourakis QC & J M Fuller

Solicitors:
Crown:  Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
First Accused:     Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Iles Selley
Second Accused:  Jennings Elliott
Third Accused:    Jennings Elliott as agents for:   John Lister
Fourth Accused: Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Coates PL
Fifth Accused:     Jennings Elliott as agents for:   Lynch & Meyer

Judgment Number: [2001] TASSC 124
Number of Paragraphs: 157

Serial No 124/2001
File No 320/2000

THE QUEEN v PHILLIP BRUCE TURNER,
MERVYN ROBIN LEE, CORNELIUS MARINUS JANSEN,
DAREN TE ARIKI CHARLES COULSTON
and ANTONIO TEDESCO (No 14)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW J

2 November 2001

These are my reasons for a determination made on 29 October 2001 pursuant to the Criminal Code, s361A, whereby I decided that certain documents were not to be admitted into evidence, but declined to exclude certain other documents. The five accused have been charged with a single count of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority ("AFMA"), an authority under the Commonwealth, contrary to the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s86A. By way of particulars, the Crown has alleged that the accused conspired to cause and permit false returns to be submitted to AFMA as to orange…

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 (No 14)

Details

AGLC: R v Turner (No 14) [2001] TASSC 124
Case: [2001] TASSC 124
Decision Date: 2 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Blow J, delivered a comprehensive judgment in the case of R v Turner (No 14). The accused, Phillip Bruce Turner, Mervyn Robin Lee, Cornelius Marinus Jansen, Daren Te Ariki Charles Coulston, and Antonio Tedesco, faced a charge of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) by submitting false returns regarding orange roughy catches in 1992 and 1993. The court had to determine whether certain documents were to be admitted into evidence or excluded based on discretionary grounds of unfairness and illegally or improperly obtained evidence. The accused argued for the exclusion of various documents, including SEF1 and SEF2 forms submitted to AFMA and documents seized pursuant to search warrants. The court found that while some documents were obtained through unlawful means, the overall gravity of the crime charged warranted the admission of most evidence. Specifically, the court excluded SEF2 forms completed by receivers in 1993 and SEF1 and SEF2 forms obtained after AFMA had a reasonable opportunity to respond to legal judgments. The court decided not to exclude documents seized pursuant to invalid or valid warrants, concluding that the admission of such evidence would not compromise the integrity of the judicial process. The decision highlighted the importance of balancing the need to uphold the rule of law with the gravity of the crime charged.

Orders