R v Wills - [2015] QSC 378

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wills [2015] QSC 378

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLS, Dean Mark

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 38 of 2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2015, 6 February 2015, 9 February 2015

JUDGE:

Burns J

ORDER:

The ruling of the court is that the evidence of the Crown witness, Kristopher James Warren, is excluded in its entirety

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED - GENERALLY – where the applicant is charged on indictment with murder – where the victim was set upon by a group of assailants in an industrial shed at Southport – where the assailants decamped from the scene after loading the victim’s body into a vehicle driven by one of them – where a male who was in the shed at the time of the attack may have witnessed the attack and/or assisted to load the body into the vehicle – where investigating police subsequently interviewed the male and obtained written statements from him – where at least four detectives participated in the interview – where the male was subjected to persistent, aggressive questioning and threatened by police – where the Crown intends calling the male as a witness in the prosecution case – where the applicant applies pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to have the evidence of the witness excluded from the jury’s consideration – whether the evidence of the witness is reliable – whether the evidence should be excluded in the exercise of the discretion conferred by s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld)

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant is charged on indictment with murder – where the victim was set upon by a group of assailants in an industrial shed at Southport – where the assailants decamped from the scene after loading the victim’s body into a vehicle driven by one of them – where a male who was in the shed at the time of the attack may have witnessed the attack and/or assisted to load the body into the vehicle – where investigating police subsequently interviewed the male and obtained written statements from him – where at least four detectives participated in the interview – where the male was subjected to persistent, aggressive questioning and threatened by police – where a formal record of interview of the male was conducted later that day and he was warned in accordance with the requirements of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where a written statement was obtained from the witness following the formal record of interview – where the Crown intends…

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 Wills

Details

AGLC: R v Wills [2015] QSC 378
Case: [2015] QSC 378
Decision Date: 9 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wills involved a defendant charged with murder following an attack on a victim at an industrial shed in Southport. A male, Kristopher James Warren, who may have witnessed the attack or assisted in loading the victim's body into a vehicle, was subsequently interviewed by police and provided written statements. The applicant sought to exclude the evidence of this witness from the jury's consideration under section 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) on the grounds that the evidence was unreliable and should be excluded under section 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld). The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence provided by the witness was reliable and whether it should be excluded under the discretion provided by the Evidence Act.

The court examined the circumstances under which the evidence was obtained, including the number of detectives involved in the interview, the nature of the questioning, and the threats made to the witness. The court found that the questioning was persistent and aggressive and that the witness was subjected to threats by police. The court also considered whether the witness was a suspect within the meaning of section 415(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) at the time of the interview and whether the interview was conducted in breach of sections 416, 418, or 431 of the same Act. The court determined that the evidence was unreliable due to the manner in which it was obtained, and therefore should be excluded under the discretion conferred by section 130 of the Evidence Act.

The court concluded that the evidence provided by Kristopher James Warren was not reliable and should be excluded from the jury's consideration. The court ruled that the evidence of the witness was excluded in its entirety. The ruling was based on the court's assessment that the evidence was obtained through improper means and was therefore not admissible under the Evidence Act. The court's decision was a significant one, as it highlighted the importance of ensuring that evidence obtained by police is done so in a manner that is fair and does not compromise the reliability of the evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The ruling of the court is that the evidence of the Crown witness, Kristopher James Warren, is excluded in its entirety

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 Wills [2015] QSC 378
PARTIES:	R v WILLS, Dean Mark (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Indictment No 38 of 2013
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 February 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2015, 6 February 2015, 9 February 2015
JUDGE:	Burns J
ORDER:	The ruling of the court is that the evidence of the Crown witness, Kristopher James Warren, is excluded in its entirety
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED - GENERALLY – where the applicant is charged on indictment with murder – where the victim was set upon by a group of assailants in an industrial shed at Southport – where the assailants decamped from the scene after loading the victim’s body into a vehicle driven by one of them – where a male who was in the shed at the time of the attack may have witnessed the attack and/or assisted to load the body into the vehicle – where investigating police subsequently interviewed the male and obtained written statements from him – where at least four detectives participated in the interview – where the male was subjected to persistent, aggressive questioning and threatened by police – where the Crown intends calling the male as a witness in the prosecution case – where the applicant applies pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) to have the evidence of the witness excluded from the jury’s consideration – whether the evidence of the witness is reliable – whether the evidence should be excluded in the exercise of the discretion conferred by s 130 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE – GENERALLY – where the applicant is charged on indictment with murder – where the victim was set upon by a group of assailants in an industrial shed at Southport – where the assailants decamped from the scene after loading the victim’s body into a vehicle driven by one of them – where a male who was in the shed at the time of the attack may have witnessed the attack and/or assisted to load the body into the vehicle – where investigating police subsequently interviewed the male and obtained written statements from him – where at least four detectives participated in the interview – where the male was subjected to persistent, aggressive questioning and threatened by police – where a formal record of interview of the male was conducted later that day and he was warned in accordance with the requirements of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) – where a written statement was obtained from the witness following the formal record of interview – where the Crown intends…