R v Workman - [2014] QDC 59

[2014] QDC 59

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
JUDGE R S JONES
Indictment No 456 of 2013
THE QUEEN
v.
DEAN JOHN WORKMAN
SOUTHPORT
2.47 PM, THURSDAY, 20 MARCH 2014

ORDER, EX TEMPORE

HIS HONOUR: I am concerned with an application to exclude from evidence a record of interview given by the applicant at the Robina police station on 6 March 2012. The applicant is charged with two counts of arson. Arson of course is an extremely serious offence. The applicant has no previous criminal history and therefore it can be assumed, for the purposes of this application, that he is unlikely to have any meaningful knowledge of police procedures and powers, and not a lot of knowledge about his rights in respect of participation in a record of interview.

Initially, it was contended that the police had failed to comply with their statutory requirements in two respects. First, a failure to comply with section 418 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, and regulation 23 of the relevant regulations. Section 418 requires the police to inform an interviewee of his right to telephone a friend and to telephone and/or speak to a lawyer. That alleged breach was not pursued before me and having regard to the transcript of the record of interview, it is understandable why that matter was not pursued. However, the second matter was pursued, and that relevantly was to the effect that section 431 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act was not complied with, and that accordingly, the record of interview should be excluded on the basis that it would be unfair to the applicant to admit it and/or on the broader public policy issues, namely that the courts should be careful to ensure that the police comply with their duties and obligations and be reluctant to act in a way which would be capable as being seen as condoning such conduct.

In this context, it should also be noted that sections 5 and 7 of the Act and the use of the word “must” throughout the Act tends to reinforce the notion that the police are expected to act in compliance with their obligations and duties, and that ramifications may flow if they do not. It is clear that at the time of the record of interview that the applicant was a suspect. Section 431 of the Act falls under division 6, dealing with the cautioning and rights of persons and relevantly provides:

1. A police officer must, before a relevant person is questioned, caution the person in the way required under the responsibilities code.
3. If the police officer reasonably suspects the person does not understand the caution, the officer may ask the person to explain the meaning of the caution in his or her own words.
4. If necessary, the police officer must further explain the caution.

The so-called code, as I understand it, is set out in regulation 26 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulations. It…

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 Workman

Details

AGLC: R v Workman [2014] QDC 59
Case: [2014] QDC 59
Decision Date: 20 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Workman involved the defendant, Dean John Workman, who was charged with two counts of arson. The issue before the District Court of Queensland was whether a record of interview conducted by the police should be excluded from evidence due to alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Specifically, the defendant argued that the police failed to comply with section 431 of the Act, which mandates that a police officer must caution a relevant person about their right to silence before questioning them. The defendant's counsel contended that the police did not provide this caution before the questioning began, leading to the argument that the record of interview should be excluded as it would be unfair to the defendant.

The court examined the record of interview and found that, although the formal caution was not given at the very outset, the police officer did inform the defendant of their rights, including the right to silence and the right to legal representation, before any substantive questioning began. The court considered that the defendant's rights were effectively communicated, and that there was no indication that the defendant was misled or coerced into participating in the interview. The exchange between the police officer and the defendant included statements that aligned with the statutory warnings, and the defendant acknowledged understanding his rights on multiple occasions throughout the interview.

Given the overall context and the communication of the defendant's rights, the court concluded that there was substantial compliance with the statutory requirements. The court found that the defendant's fundamental right not to incriminate himself was not compromised and dismissed the application to exclude the record of interview from evidence.

Orders