R v Yana ORM

In the matter of R v Yana Orm, the respondent was charged with possessing dangerous drugs with intent to supply. The dispute arose as to the admissibility of evidence obtained during an illegal search. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent argued that the evidence should be excluded due to the breach of her rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The respondent contended that the evidence should be excluded due to the breach of her rights under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), and because the police failed to record her admissions.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence obtained during the illegal search should be excluded under section 138 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court also had to consider whether the police conduct in failing to record the admissions was a breach of the desirable practice regarding the conduct of the Exercise of powers in relation to the Exercise of powers in relation to the Entry, search and seizure powers (ERISP). The court considered the principles set out in cases such as R v ZD and considered whether the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to afford fair treatment to the respondent. The court found that the police conduct did not amount to a significant breach of the desirable practice and that the evidence should not be excluded as it was necessary to afford fair treatment to the respondent.

The court held that the evidence obtained during the illegal search should not be excluded as it was necessary to afford fair treatment to the respondent. The court found that the police conduct did not amount to a significant breach of the desirable practice regarding the conduct of the ERISP. The court also held that the exclusion of the evidence was not necessary to afford fair treatment to the respondent as the respondent had not established that the evidence was obtained in a manner that was unfair or oppressive. The court found that the evidence was relevant and probative to the charges against the respondent and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court admitted the evidence and the respondent was found guilty as charged.