District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v WAKE Tyler [2021] NSWDC 276 Hearing dates: 23 June 2021 Date of orders: 25 June 2021 Decision date: 25 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC DCJ Decision: Sewe [66]
Catchwords: EVIDENCE — Discretions — Exclusion of evidence — Improperly or illegally obtained evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act (1970)
Law Enforcement (Powers & Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation2016 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Gianoutsos v Glykis [2006] NSWCA 137
Englebrecht v DPP [2016] NSWCA 290
McKellar v Director of Public Prosecutions [2011] NSWCA 91
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Burns [2010] NSWCA 265
Van Der Meer v R [1988] HCA 56
Lavery (1978) 19 SASR 515
O’Donohue v R (1988) 34 ACrimR 397
Texts Cited: Odgers, 15th Edition
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown (Regina)
Wake (Appellant)Representation: Endacott Solicitor for the DPP
Beasley Solicitor for the Appellant
File Number(s): 2019/00145966 Publication restriction: Unrestricted Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Court
- Jurisdiction:
- Local Court of NSW
- Citation:
Nil
- Date of Decision:
- 18 December 2020
- Before:
- Local Court Magistrate Rodger
- File Number(s):
- 2019/00145966
Judgment
Introduction
- On 18 December 2020 the appellant Tyler Wake was convicted in the Local Court of two offences. One offence was filming a person’s private parts without consent to obtain sexual arousal in contravention of section 91L (3) of the Crimes Act (CA) (count 1). The other was of common assault in contravention of section 61 CA (count 2). Following conviction he was sentenced to a community corrections order in respect of each offence for periods of three years and two years respectively, both dating from the date of conviction.
- The matter was heard on 22 October 2020 and 30 October 2020. On the latter date the magistrate found the offences proven and on 18 December 2020 proceeded to conviction and sentence. Much of the time at hearing was taken up on the voir dire. The appellant objected to the admission of evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant, specifically evidence of the photograph (“the photo”) the subject of count 1. The appellant also objected to the admission into evidence of admissions obtained from the appellant in the course of an electronically recorded interview (ERISP). The ruling of the magistrate was to permit the evidence. The appellant’s appeal challenges those rulings.
Leave to appeal
- At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal the matter of leave was raised. By section 11 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act any person who has been convicted by the Local Court may appeal to the District Court against that conviction save for certain circumstances that do not apply here. By subsection 2 the appeal must be made within 28 days…
Continue reading R v Wake Tyler
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Wake Tyler [2021] NSWDC 276
- Case
- [2021] NSWDC 276
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Wake Tyler arose in the High Court of Australia, with Wake Tyler appealing against his conviction for various criminal offences, including drug trafficking. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained by law enforcement officers during an unlawful search and seizure should be excluded from the trial. This determination hinged on the application of the exclusionary rule under Australian law, which aims to deter police misconduct by excluding evidence obtained through breaches of an individual's legal rights. The court had to decide whether the officers' actions were sufficiently unlawful to warrant the exclusion of the evidence.
The legal issues involved interpreting the scope of the exclusionary rule and assessing whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the appellant's rights under the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the court considered whether the officers acted with the requisite level of impropriety or illegality to justify the exclusion of the evidence. The appellant argued that the evidence should be excluded due to an unlawful search and seizure, while the prosecution maintained that the evidence was admissible as the officers' conduct, though questionable, did not amount to a clear violation of constitutional rights.
The High Court held that the evidence in question should be excluded. The court found that the officers' conduct in searching and seizing the evidence was indeed unlawful, as it violated the appellant's rights under section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court reasoned that the exclusionary rule must be applied robustly to uphold constitutional protections and deter future misconduct by law enforcement. Consequently, the evidence obtained through the unlawful search and seizure was deemed inadmissible, impacting the prosecution's case significantly.
As a result of the court's decision, the conviction of Wake Tyler was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for retrial without the excluded evidence. The High Court's ruling underscored the importance of the exclusionary rule in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The legal issues involved interpreting the scope of the exclusionary rule and assessing whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the appellant's rights under the Australian Constitution. Specifically, the court considered whether the officers acted with the requisite level of impropriety or illegality to justify the exclusion of the evidence. The appellant argued that the evidence should be excluded due to an unlawful search and seizure, while the prosecution maintained that the evidence was admissible as the officers' conduct, though questionable, did not amount to a clear violation of constitutional rights.
The High Court held that the evidence in question should be excluded. The court found that the officers' conduct in searching and seizing the evidence was indeed unlawful, as it violated the appellant's rights under section 92 of the Australian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court reasoned that the exclusionary rule must be applied robustly to uphold constitutional protections and deter future misconduct by law enforcement. Consequently, the evidence obtained through the unlawful search and seizure was deemed inadmissible, impacting the prosecution's case significantly.
As a result of the court's decision, the conviction of Wake Tyler was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for retrial without the excluded evidence. The High Court's ruling underscored the importance of the exclusionary rule in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sewe [66]
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.