R v Williams - [2008] SADC 68

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WILLIAMS
[2008] SADC 68
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Chivell
28 May 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
Police interrogation - whether accused given reasonable opportunity to exercise rights under s79A Summary Offences Act, 1953 - whether interview tainted by previous failure to comply with s79A - whether accused declined to answer questions - whether accused intoxicated by drugs at time of interview. Application to exclude evidence in exercise of discretion refused.
Summary Offences Act 1953 s79A, referred to.
R v Andrews & Ors [2005] SASC 15; R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; Wendo v The Queen (1963) 109 CLR 559; R v Collins (1976) 12 SASR 501; R v Stafford (1976) 13 SASR 392; Robinett v Police (2000) 78 SASR 85; R v Williamson (No 2) (1997) 69 SASR 486; R v Fry (1990) LSJS 161; R v Wilson (1987) 47 SASR 287; Van der Meer v R (1988) 82 ALR 10, considered.

R v WILLIAMS
[2008] SADC 68

The accused, Brian Williams, is charged with possessing methylamphetamine for sale, contrary to s32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
On 6 April 2006, at about 10.40pm, police entered room 500 at the Motel Adjacent Casino at Bank Street, Adelaide and, in his presence, conducted a search of Mr Williams’s belongings pursuant to a General Search Warrant held by Detective Brevet Sergeant Lange. The product of the search forms the basis of the charge.
By Rule 9 application, dated 15 March 2008, Mr Williams seeks exclusion of evidence of certain statements made by him to the police both during the course of the search and afterwards at the motel, and later at the City Watch House at Adelaide.
The Rule 9 application originally sought exclusion of the proceeds of the search as a matter of discretion on the basis that the search was unlawful. That application was not pursued.
Exclusion of the conversations with police was sought on the basis that Mr Williams did not act voluntarily when he spoke to them. That ground was also not pursued.
The application also sought exclusion of the evidence of conversations on the basis that s74D of the Summary Offences Act was not complied with. This ground was also not pursued.
The application for exclusion was pursued on the basis that:
·Mr Williams had indicated a wish to exercise his right to refrain from answering questions, and that such indication was disregarded by the interviewing officer;
·Mr Williams was not provided with his arrest rights, pursuant to the requirements of s79A of the Summary Offences Act, at the appropriate stage; and
·the applicant was not afforded any adequate opportunity to exercise those rights.
It was submitted by Mr Anders, counsel for Mr Williams, that by virtue of these matters, the conversations with the police should be excluded in the exercise of my discretion.
There is…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2008] SADC 68
Case: [2008] SADC 68
Decision Date: 28 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams involved the appellant, who was charged with various criminal offences, including assault and drug possession. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained from the appellant during a police interrogation should be excluded due to alleged failures by the police to ensure the appellant was aware of his rights under the Summary Offences Act, 1953. The appellant claimed that he was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights, and the interview was tainted by previous failures to comply with the statutory requirements. The appellant also argued that he was intoxicated at the time of the interview, which may have affected his ability to understand his rights or the questions posed.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence gathered during the police interview should be excluded under the judicial discretion provided by the relevant statute. The legal issues centred on whether the police adequately informed the appellant of his rights under s79A of the Summary Offences Act, 1953, and whether the appellant's alleged intoxication and previous non-compliance with the statutory requirements rendered the interview and any subsequent admissions inadmissible. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's decision to decline to answer questions was a result of the alleged failings or his own volition.

In examining these issues, the court found that the police had taken reasonable steps to inform the appellant of his rights, and any previous non-compliance did not taint the subsequent interview. The court also determined that the appellant's intoxication, while a factor, did not render the interview and admissions inadmissible. The court held that the appellant had made an informed decision to decline to answer questions, and therefore, the evidence obtained during the police interview was admissible. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant statute and refused the application to exclude the evidence.

The court's decision was that the evidence obtained during the police interrogation would not be excluded. The appellant's application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible in the proceedings against him. The court's ruling was based on the findings that the police had taken reasonable steps to inform the appellant of his rights, that any previous non-compliance did not taint the subsequent interview, and that the appellant had made an informed decision to decline to answer questions. The court's decision was a significant outcome in the case, as it allowed the prosecution to proceed with the evidence gathered during the police interview.

Orders