R v Versac

Case [2013] QSC 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Versac [2013] QSC 46

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)
v
ALEX CHRISTIAN PAUL VERSAC
(applicant)

FILE NO:

603 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Section 590AA Application to Exclude Evidence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

1 March 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 February 2013

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Direct that the evidence obtained during the search of a white Hyundai Accent motor vehicle, registration number TSR 363 on 22 September 2009 be excluded as evidence in the trial of the applicant in proceeding indictment No 603/12 in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE-JUDICAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant charged with possession of a dangerous drug – where police officers conducted unlawful search of applicant’s vehicle – whether action of police officers was reckless – whether  discretion to exclude evidence should be exercised.

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, cited
DPP v Leonard (2001) 53 NSWLR 227; [2001]NSWSC 797, cited
DPP v Nicholls (2001) 123 A Crim R 66; [2001] NSWSC 523, cited
Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173; [1998] HCA 9, cited
Pollard v The Queen (1997) 176 CLR 177; [1992] HCA 69, cited
R v Christensen (2005)156 A Crim R 397; [2005] QSC 279, cited

R v Dalley (2002) 132 A Crim R 169; [2002] NSWCCA 284, cited
R v Day and Anor [2008] QSC 358, cited
R v Lobban (2000) 112 A Crim R 357;[2000] SASC 48, cited
R v McKeough [2003] NSWCCA 385, considered
R v Milos unreported, Boddice J, SC No 817 of 2011, 3 December 2012, cited
R v Versac [2011] QCA 318, cited
R v Williamson [2009] QSC 434, cited
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; [1995] HCA 66, cited
The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, cited
The Queen v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321; [1970] HCA 21, cited

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) ss 31, 32, 160, 161 and 162
Road Use Management Act 1995 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

C Wilson for the applicant
S Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Peter Shields Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. The applicant is charged on indictment with possession of heroin on 22 September 2009.  The prosecution case depends on the discovery of the heroin in a parked car which was searched by police without a warrant.

  1. The applicant seeks the exclusion of the evidence obtained during the search on the ground that the search was unlawful and that the discretion to exclude such evidence should be exercised.  The respondent initially argued in its written submissions that the search was lawful.  However, following the evidence given before…

Continue reading R v Versac

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Versac [2013] QSC 46
Case
[2013] QSC 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Versac, was charged with possession of a dangerous drug and the matter came before the court for a ruling on the admissibility of evidence obtained from an unlawful search. The vehicle in question, a white Hyundai Accent with the registration number TSR 363, was searched on 22 September 2009, and the evidence obtained during this search was the subject of contention. The court was required to determine whether the police officers' actions were reckless and if the discretion to exclude the evidence should be exercised.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence under the general principles of criminal law. The primary question was whether the evidence obtained from the unlawful search should be excluded from the trial, considering the officers' reckless conduct. The court also had to consider the implications of the officers' actions on the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.

The court found that the actions of the police officers were indeed reckless and that the discretion to exclude the evidence should be exercised. The officers' unlawful conduct compromised the fairness of the trial, and the integrity of the judicial process could not be upheld if the evidence was admitted. Consequently, the court ordered that the evidence obtained during the search of the white Hyundai Accent on 22 September 2009 be excluded as evidence in the trial of the defendant in proceeding indictment No 603/12 in the Supreme Court of Queensland. This ruling ensured that the trial would proceed without the tainted evidence, maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Direct that the evidence obtained during the search of a white Hyundai Accent motor vehicle, registration number TSR 363 on 22 September 2009 be excluded as evidence in the trial of the applicant in proceeding indictment No 603/12 in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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.