R v Wilton & Hallion - [2014] SADC 205

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WILTON & HALLION
[2014] SADC 205
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
11 December 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PROCEDURE - PROOF AND EVIDENCE
Circumstances alleged to mitigate participation in trafficking in cannabis, found unproven on the evidence.
Mule v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1573; Anderson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 520; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270, applied.
R v Trocko (1988) 142 LSJS 187, discussed.
Tiknius v The Queen (2011) 221 A Crim R 365; R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577; R v Wilton [2014] SASCFC 96; Oblach v The Queen (2005) 65 NSWLR 75; R v Day (2009) 262 LSJS 187; Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256; He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502, considered.

R v WILTON & HALLION
[2014] SADC 205
A disputed facts hearing

The defendants Trevor John Hallion and his half-brother William Jeffrey Wilton, were arraigned at Port Augusta on 2 April 2014 on a joint charge of trafficking in a large quantity of the controlled drug cannabis. Mr Wilton pleaded not guilty whereas Mr Hallion pleaded guilty. Mr Wilton was subsequently tried before a jury at Port Augusta and convicted. His appeal against conviction on the basis of an unreasonable and unsupportable verdict was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal: R v Wilton.[1]
[1] [2014] SASCFC 96.
Both matters are now before the court for sentence. In relation to Mr Hallion there is an outstanding dispute as to the factual basis on which he is to be sentenced. He claims to have been subject to threats and intimidation in committing the offence. These reasons explain why Mr Hallion has failed to demonstrate such threats or intimidation occurred.
Uncontradicted facts
Towards sunset on Thursday 29 September 2011, Mr Hallion was driving his van northwards along the Stuart Highway in the upper north of the State, bound for Alice Springs. He was pulled over by Senior Constable Larkins who was then on ‘solo uniform mobile patrol’ about 15 km north of Coober Pedy, for the purpose of conducting a random breath test. Mr Hallion was alone in his vehicle. Larkins detected a strong smell of cannabis coming from the van as he stood next to it on the side of the highway. He informed Mr Hallion that he proposed to inspect the vehicle, his suspicions having been aroused. No issue is taken as to the legality of the ensuring search.
Adjacent to the sliding door inside the rear compartment he noticed a plastic garbage bag and again detected the strong smell of cannabis coming from it. Upon opening the package he observed that it contained cannabis. He thereupon contacted other police for assistance.
The vehicle was conveyed to the Coober Pedy Police Station and searched. A total of…

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 Wilton & Hallion

Details

AGLC: R v Wilton & Hallion [2014] SADC 205
Case: [2014] SADC 205
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilton & Hallion, the respondents were convicted of drug trafficking offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The respondents were involved in a drug trafficking operation, which was discovered and investigated by law enforcement authorities. The case came before the High Court of Australia to address issues relating to the admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful means. The respondents contended that evidence obtained during an unlawful search should be excluded from the trial. The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence obtained through the unlawful search could be admitted at trial under the common law exclusion, which bars the prosecution from relying on evidence obtained through unlawful means. The court had to determine the scope and application of this exclusion in the context of drug trafficking offences.

The High Court held that the common law exclusion applied to evidence obtained through unlawful means, and that such evidence could be excluded if it was obtained in a manner that violated the respondent's rights under the Australian Constitution. The court found that the search in question was conducted without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion, and therefore constituted an unlawful search. The court emphasised the importance of upholding the protection of individual rights and freedoms against government intrusion. Consequently, the evidence obtained through the unlawful search was deemed inadmissible at trial. The convictions of the respondents were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a new trial without the inadmissible evidence.

Orders