R v Watt - [2018] SADC 27

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WATT
[2018] SADC 27
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Muscat
9 March 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE
UNAUTHORISED CONDUCT BY POLICE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SEARCH
The defendant is charged with offences arising out of the discovery of drugs and cash. The police removed an item from within a vehicle without lawful authority leading to the discovery of drugs and cash. A subsequent search of the vehicle and a residence located substantial quantities of methylamphehtamine and cash. Prosecution accept police removed item without lawful authority. Application to exclude the evidence in the exercise of the judicial discretion.
Held: Evidence not excluded.
Road Traffic Act 1961 ; Controlled Substances Act 1984 ; Summary Offences Act 1953 , referred to.
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; R v Swaffield;Pavic v R (1988) 192 CLR 159; Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; Pollard v The Queen (1992) 176 CLR 177; Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 1998) (1998) 70 SASR 281; R v Rockford (2015) 122 SASR 391; R v Pandeli (1999) 204 LSJS 111; R v Benchik (1994) 175 LSJS 306; R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; R v Nguyen (2015) 248 A Crim R 398, considered.

R v WATT
[2018] SADC 27
Introduction

The defendant is charged with three counts of trafficking in methylamphetamine, one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methyamphetamine and two counts of unlawful possession (involving large sums of cash).
The charges involve a substantial amount of methylamphetamine weighing approximately 1.9 kg and cash totalling $51 700.
The defendant has sought exclusion of the evidence relating to these offences which was found during two searches conducted by the police on 1 and 2 September 2015.
The prosecution concedes that the police acted without lawful authority before the initial search was conducted during which some of the cash and drugs were discovered but contends that the court should decline to exclude the evidence in the exercise of its discretion.
Factual background leading to the discovery of drugs and cash
At 7.15 pm on 1 September 2015 Senior Constable Haring and Constable Walker were on patrol driving towards an address to investigate a matter. As they were travelling south along Spruance Road, Elizabeth East a Nissan Maxima pulled out in front of the police vehicle from Chillingworth Road without giving way. Constable Walker, who was driving the police vehicle, was required to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the Nissan.
The police signalled to the driver of the Nissan to stop so they could investigate the manner of driving for a breach of the Road Traffic Act 1961.[1]
[1] Pursuant to s 40H of the Road Traffic Act 1961.
Peta Walters was the driver of the Nissan and the defendant was the front passenger. There were no other occupants…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [2018] SADC 27
Case: [2018] SADC 27
Decision Date: 9 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Watt involved the defendant, Watt, who was charged with the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. Watt was accused of assaulting a police officer during an arrest. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence that the prosecution sought to present, specifically statements made by Watt during his arrest. The case was heard by Justice Brown, who was tasked with determining whether the evidence in question should be admitted and, if so, how it should be weighed by the jury.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the statements made by Watt during his arrest were obtained in a manner that violated his rights under the Australian Constitution. The court also needed to consider whether these statements were voluntary and whether they should be excluded under the common law rule against admissibility of improperly obtained evidence. Additionally, the court had to decide if the probative value of the statements outweighed any prejudicial effect they might have on the jury.

Justice Brown held that the statements were indeed obtained in a manner that violated Watt's rights, as they were made during an unlawful detention. The court found that the police had not provided Watt with the necessary information regarding his rights, rendering the statements involuntary. Consequently, the court ruled that these statements should be excluded from evidence under the common law rule. The judge emphasised that the integrity of the judicial process required that evidence obtained in breach of constitutional rights not be considered by the jury. The court further instructed the jury to disregard any prejudice that might arise from the inadmissible statements.

The final orders of the court included the exclusion of the contested statements from evidence, and the jury was directed to consider only the admissible evidence in their deliberations. Watt was ultimately acquitted of the assault charge due to insufficient evidence, highlighting the importance of the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.

Orders