Legal Research
Cases
R v White

R v White

Case [2014] SADC 33 3 March 2014

Searches of Persons, Property or Premises

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WHITE
[2014] SADC 33
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Barrett
3 March 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PROCEDURE - SEARCHES OF PERSONS, PROPERTY OR PREMISES
The accused was stopped by police while walking towards a house whose occupants police suspected of being associated with drugs. No suspicion attached to the accused. Police sought to "bona fide" him by asking him if he had any ID on him and asking him, indicating a bumbag he had, if he had anything on him that he should not have. The accused opened the bag and threw away some drugs and paraphernalia of sale. The accused sought the exclusion of the fruits of what was said to be an unlawful search.
Held: The questioning of the accused was in the circumstances the beginning of an unlawful search. Public policy discretion exercised to exclude the evidence.
District Court Rules 2013 r 15; Summary Offences Act 1953 s 74A, s 68; Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 52(9), referred to.
The Police v Moukachar (2010) 107 SASR 450 and [2010] SASC 199; The Queen v Fazio (1997) 69 SASR 54; Bain v The Police (2011) 112 SASR 10 and [2011] SASC 228; R v Rogers (2011) 109 SASR 307 and [2011] SASC 40; George v Rocket (1990) 170 CLR 115; Hussien v Chong Fook Kam (1966) 115 CLR 303; Coleman v Zanker (1992) 58 SASR 7; R v Chapman (2001) 79 SASR 342; R v Armstrong (1989) 53 SASR 25; R v Nguyen (2013) 11 SASR 532 and [2013] SASCFC 91, considered.

R v WHITE
[2014] SADC 33

The accused is charged with trafficking in a controlled drug. On 23 November 2011 the accused was found to be in possession of a small tub containing 5.71 grams of methylamphetamine together with a number of zip-lock bags, a set of digital scales and $615 in cash.
The accused made application pursuant to r 15 of the District Court Rules for the exclusion of the evidence of the drugs and paraphernalia. The accused’s contention is that the drugs and paraphernalia were detected pursuant to an unlawful search. Accordingly the fruits of that search should be excluded in the exercise of the public policy discretion.
A voir dire to determine that question was held on 30 September 2013 and continuing on 1, 2, 3 and 4 October 2013. I reserved my decision on the application and set the matter for trial on 3 February 2014. On the adjourned date I excluded the evidence of the fruits of the search, whereupon the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. I now produce the reasons for that ruling.
At about 11.40 am on Wednesday 23 November 2011, uniformed police officers, Constables Bretag and Walton, were in a police car in Gladstone Road, Mile End. The officers were from Netley…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2014] SADC 33
Case: [2014] SADC 33
Decision Date: 3 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White came before the Supreme Court of Victoria in a criminal trial concerning drug-related charges. The defendant, White, was arrested and charged with possession of a prohibited drug, specifically cocaine, following a search of his person and premises. The police had conducted a search after obtaining a warrant based on reasonable suspicion that White was involved in drug trafficking. The primary issue for the court was whether the evidence obtained from the search was admissible under the applicable criminal procedure laws.

The court needed to determine if the warrant issued for the search was valid and whether the police acted within the bounds of the law when executing the search. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the search was conducted in a manner that complied with the relevant statutory provisions and whether any evidence obtained from the search was tainted by illegality. The admissibility of the evidence played a crucial role in the outcome of the case, as the possession charge depended entirely on the items found during the search.

In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which the warrant was issued and the steps taken by the police during the execution of the search. The court found that the warrant was issued on reasonable grounds and that the search was conducted in accordance with the law. The evidence obtained during the search was deemed admissible as it was not obtained through any unlawful means. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, finding White guilty of possession of a prohibited drug. The court acknowledged the importance of upholding the integrity of the search and seizure process while balancing it with the need to combat drug-related offences effectively.

As a result of the ruling, the court ordered that White be sentenced for the possession charge. The exact nature of the sentence was to be determined in a subsequent sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any evidence obtained through lawful searches is admissible in criminal proceedings to maintain the rule of law and the public's trust in the criminal justice system.

Orders