CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Application to exclude evidence of the fruits of the search of a motor vehicle at Mansfield Park - police had directed that the vehicle be stopped for a licence check - while those officers were undertaking those checks other police officers arrived - one of those latter police officers opened the passenger door of the vehicle - they subsequently searched the vehicle and located methylamphetamine - whether suspicions of latter police officers were reasonable - whether search was lawful - whether evidence obtained by the police ought to be excluded.
Held: The direction of the police officer that the vehicle stop for a licence check was entirely proper pursuant to s 40H of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA); the opening of the passenger side door prior to forming a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained drugs was unlawful - however at the time of the subsequent search of the vehicle the police officer did have reasonable suspicion that drugs were in the vehicle such as to justify the search of the vehicle and the accused. In the proper exercise of the Bunning v Cross discretion the evidence of the fruits of the search will not be excluded in the trial - the application for the accused to exclude that evidence is refused.
[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 W, N P
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v W, N P [2019] SADC 143
Case
[2019] SADC 143
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v W, N P involved an application to exclude evidence obtained from a search of a motor vehicle that occurred at Mansfield Park. The police had initially directed the vehicle to stop for a licence check. While the officers were conducting this check, additional police arrived on the scene. One of these officers opened the passenger door of the vehicle without forming a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contained drugs, which led to a subsequent search. During this search, methylamphetamine was found. The legal issues before the court were whether the police officers' suspicions were reasonable at the time of the search and whether the search was lawful. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the evidence obtained should be excluded due to being unfairly obtained or improperly procured.
The court found that the initial direction for the vehicle to stop was legitimate under section 40H of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA). However, the opening of the passenger door without a reasonable suspicion that drugs were present was deemed unlawful. The court further determined that by the time of the search, the officers had reasonable suspicion that drugs were in the vehicle, which justified the search. In exercising the discretion under Bunning v Cross, the court concluded that the evidence obtained from the search should not be excluded in the trial. Consequently, the application by the accused to exclude the evidence was refused.
In conclusion, the court ruled that while there were procedural irregularities in how the search was conducted, the ultimate suspicion that led to the search was reasonable and justified. The evidence obtained from the search, which was conducted under these circumstances, was deemed admissible. Therefore, the application by the accused to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the case will proceed with the evidence being admitted in the trial.