R v Westcott - [2014] QDC 278

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Westcott [2014] QDC 278

PARTIES:

Campbell Drew WESTCOTT

(Applicant)

-v-

The Queen

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Pre-trial application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

04 December 2014

JUDGE:

Durward SC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT – REASONABLE SUSPICION – where accused a passenger in vehicle lawfully stopped – where police officer had information about accused’s modus operendi involving a bag and vehicle used to facilitate supply of drugs – where police officer observed a bag at accused’s feet inside the vehicle – where police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion prior to search of vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000

LEGISLATION:

Sections 29, 30, 31, 32 and 60 Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000; Section 592AA Criminal Code (Qld); Sections 119 and 120 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.

COUNSEL:

J Greggery for the applicant

K Stone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Malcomson Lawyers for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

The application

The applicant, Westcott, is charged with thirteen drug offences including one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, cannabis.

The applicant seeks the exclusion of the evidence seized from a search of a vehicle on 30 July 2013 in Townsville, on the basis of an exercise of discretion to exclude evidence unlawfully obtained.

Factual circumstances

At about 1.15 p.m. on 30 July 2013, Plain Clothes Constable Hilton (“Hilton”) was driving in Annandale when he saw a silver Holden Commodore sedan registration 761SEZ travelling in the opposite direction. He recognised the driver as a juvenile whom he knew to be unlicensed. He intercepted the vehicle for the purpose of a driver licence check.

Whilst at the driver’s window, Hilton observed a green canvas bag (“the bag”) sitting on the floor of the vehicle at the feet of the applicant, who was seated in the front passenger seat. Hilton said in his statement of witness that:

“At the time I was in possession of current intelligence holdings relating to Westcott and as a result reasonably suspected that at the time he was in possession of dangerous drugs.”

He detained the applicant and the juvenile for the purpose of a search.

Upon a pat down search of the applicant, a clipseal bag containing about 3 grams of cannabis was located. In a search of the bag he located two boxes of clipseal bags, a set of digital scales, two apple i-phones and a silver purse containing cash in the sum of $1,170.00.

A more thorough, personal search of the applicant at the roadside resulted in the applicant producing a clipseal bag of cannabis from his underwear weighing about 28 grams. The applicant was interviewed at the police station and the mobile telephones, upon subsequent examination, were found to contain drug related text messages. He was charged with drug offences…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Westcott and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QDC 278
Decision Date: 10 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Westcott was heard in a court where the accused was charged with criminal offences. The primary dispute centred on the legality of a search conducted without a warrant. The search occurred while the accused was a passenger in a vehicle that had been lawfully stopped. The central issue was whether the police officer had a reasonable suspicion, in accordance with the Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000, to conduct the search based on information about the accused's previous criminal activities and the presence of a bag at the accused's feet inside the vehicle. The court was required to determine the threshold for reasonable suspicion and whether the officer's actions were justified under the relevant legislation.

The court examined the circumstances leading up to the search, focusing on the officer's information about the accused's modus operandi, which involved using a bag and vehicle to facilitate the supply of drugs. The court assessed whether the officer's observations and prior knowledge provided a sufficient basis for forming a reasonable suspicion. It considered the officer's experience, the reliability of the information, and the context in which the search was conducted. The court found that the officer's actions were reasonable under the circumstances, as the information and observations were sufficient to warrant a suspicion that an offence was being committed.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence obtained from the search. The reasoning was that the officer's reasonable suspicion, grounded in the accused's known criminal activities and the observed bag, justified the search without a warrant. The court held that the officer's actions complied with the statutory requirements, and therefore, the evidence obtained was admissible. This decision underscores the importance of the specific circumstances and the officer's knowledge in forming a reasonable suspicion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Westcott [2014] QDC 278
PARTIES:	Campbell Drew WESTCOTT (Applicant) -v- The Queen (Respondent)
FILE NO:
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Pre-trial application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	10 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	04 December 2014
JUDGE:	Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT – REASONABLE SUSPICION – where accused a passenger in vehicle lawfully stopped – where police officer had information about accused’s modus operendi involving a bag and vehicle used to facilitate supply of drugs – where police officer observed a bag at accused’s feet inside the vehicle – where police officer had formed a reasonable suspicion prior to search of vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000
LEGISLATION:	Sections 29, 30, 31, 32 and 60 Police Powers & Responsibilities Act 2000; Section 592AA Criminal Code (Qld); Sections 119 and 120 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.
COUNSEL:	J Greggery for the applicant K Stone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Malcomson Lawyers for the applicant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent