R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)
Case
•
[2022] QCA 113
•24 June 2022
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 113
[2022] QCA 113
24 June 2022
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Wassmuth; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld), the respondent was charged with drug offences relating to trafficking in methylamphetamine and possession of methylamphetamine. The charges were based upon evidence obtained during police searches, including a search of a motor vehicle stopped by police. The police acted on intelligence that a vehicle was travelling to Townsville and may contain drugs, and they searched the motor vehicle without a warrant. An application for a pre-trial ruling was made to exclude the evidence obtained in the searches, and the primary judge held that the evidence should be excluded. The Attorney-General referred a point of law to the court, seeking to determine whether section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld) authorises police to search a vehicle only when the circumstances do not reasonably permit for the obtaining of a warrant and whether the search was unlawful.
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law to determine whether the police were required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle. The court found that the operation of section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld) is not reserved for circumstances when it is not apt to obtain a warrant. The court held that the police were not required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle, as the circumstances reasonably permitted the obtaining of a warrant. The court found that the search was lawful, and the evidence obtained should not be excluded.
The court set aside the order made on 23 September 2021, which excluded the evidence of the search of the motor vehicle on 19 November 2018 and of the contents of the motor vehicle and of the contents of the mobile phone from evidence at the trial of the defendant. The court answered the question referred to it, "Is the operation of s.31 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 to be reserved for circumstances when it is not apt to obtain a warrant", as "No".
The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law to determine whether the police were required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle. The court found that the operation of section 31 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 (Qld) is not reserved for circumstances when it is not apt to obtain a warrant. The court held that the police were not required to obtain a warrant before searching the vehicle, as the circumstances reasonably permitted the obtaining of a warrant. The court found that the search was lawful, and the evidence obtained should not be excluded.
The court set aside the order made on 23 September 2021, which excluded the evidence of the search of the motor vehicle on 19 November 2018 and of the contents of the motor vehicle and of the contents of the mobile phone from evidence at the trial of the defendant. The court answered the question referred to it, "Is the operation of s.31 of the Police Powers and Responsibility Act 2000 to be reserved for circumstances when it is not apt to obtain a warrant", as "No".
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Jurisdiction
-
Standing
-
Admissibility of Evidence
-
Limitation Periods
-
Police Powers
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
R v Van Hass [2023] QSC 88
Cases Citing This Decision
14
Fox v Waller
[2023] QSC 169
Eshchenko v Commissioner of State Revenue
[2023] QSC 100
R v Van Hass
[2023] QSC 88
Cases Cited
14
Statutory Material Cited
4
R v Versac
[2013] QSC 46
R v Pohl
[2014] QSC 173
R v Toon
[2015] QSC 117
Cited Sections