R v ZD - [2016] QDC 355

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v ZD [2016] QDC 355

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

ZD

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

890/2015

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 January 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 December 2015. Further written submissions by the defendant dated 15 December 2015 and further written submissions by the Crown dated 18 December 2015.

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1. The field tape interview of 8 May 2014 and the record of interview of 8 May 2014 are excluded from evidence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- EVIDENCE- CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS-VOLUNTARINESS-DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE- whether confessions were voluntary- whether unfairly obtained

Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s590AA

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) s10

Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s130

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss5, 7, 415, 416, 418, 419, 427, 428, 429, 430,431

Police Powers and Responsibilities Code rr22, 23, 26, 34

Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Q) s4.9

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54

Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1

Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257

Duke v R (1989) 180 CLR 508

McDermott v R (1948) 76 CLR 501

McPherson v R (1981) 147 CLR 519

Pollard v R (1992) 176 CLR 177

R v Cleary (1963) 48 Cr App R 116

R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321

R v Plotzki [1972] Qd R 379

R v Tie Tie [2011] QSC 166

Swaffield v R (1997) 192 CLR 159

Van Der Meer v R (1988) 35 A Crim R 232

COUNSEL:

Ms S. Dennis for the crown

Mr J. Fraser for defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown

Northside lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

This is an application pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Q) by the defendant to exclude an interview conducted between the defendant and Police at the defendant’s house on 8 May 2014 and, further, an interview conducted on 8 May 2014 at the Ferny Grove Police Station.

The basis of the applications is that the crown cannot prove they are voluntary or alternatively in the exercise of the court’s discretion they should be excluded.

Background

The defendant is charged with the following counts:

(a) 1 count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child;

(b) 10 counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16;

(c) 4 counts of making child exploitation material;

(d) 1 count of carnal knowledge with or of children under 16;

(e) 1 count of using electronic communication to procure a child under 16;

(f) 1 count of attempted indecent treatment of a child under 16;

(g) 1 count of procuring a young person for carnal knowledge; and

(h) 2 counts of possessing child exploitation material.

The charges range from 30 November 2013 and 9 May 2014. The accused was born on 24 July 1994 and was 19 years of age at the time of the interviews. The complainant child was 12 years old. It is alleged the two of them…

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 ZD

Details

AGLC: R v ZD [2016] QDC 355
Case: [2016] QDC 355
Decision Date: 22 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v ZD involved the defendant, ZD, who was on trial for various criminal charges. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility of certain confessions and admissions made by ZD during police interviews, with the defence arguing that these were not voluntary and had been unfairly obtained, thus warranting their exclusion under the statutory provisions governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining whether the confessions and admissions were voluntary and if they had been obtained in a manner compliant with the relevant statutory frameworks. This required a meticulous examination of the circumstances under which the interviews took place, including the procedural adherence to the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 and the compatibility of these procedures with the principles set out in the Evidence Act 1977. The court also had to consider whether the rights of ZD were adequately protected during the interview process.

In examining the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the confessions and admissions were not voluntary. The court found that there were significant procedural breaches during the interviews that undermined the voluntariness of ZD’s statements. These breaches included failures to properly inform ZD of his rights, extended periods of interrogation without appropriate breaks, and a coercive environment that pressured ZD into making admissions. Based on these findings, the court exercised its discretion under the Evidence Act 1977 to exclude the contested evidence, ruling that its admission would render the trial unfair.

The court's decision resulted in the exclusion of the field tape interview of 8 May 2014 and the record of interview of the same date from the evidence in the trial. This exclusion was a direct consequence of the court's determination that the rights of the defendant were compromised during the investigative process, leading to an unfair advantage for the prosecution.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The field tape interview of 8 May 2014 and the record of interview of 8 May 2014 are excluded from evidence.

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 ZD [2016] QDC 355
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v ZD (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	890/2015
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 January 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 December 2015. Further written submissions by the defendant dated 15 December 2015 and further written submissions by the Crown dated 18 December 2015.
JUDGE:	Smith DCJA
ORDER:	1. The field tape interview of 8 May 2014 and the record of interview of 8 May 2014 are excluded from evidence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- EVIDENCE- CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS-VOLUNTARINESS-DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE- whether confessions were voluntary- whether unfairly obtained Criminal Code 1899 (Q) s590AA Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Q) s10 Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s130 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Q) ss5, 7, 415, 416, 418, 419, 427, 428, 429, 430,431 Police Powers and Responsibilities Code rr22, 23, 26, 34 Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Q) s4.9 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1 Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257 Duke v R (1989) 180 CLR 508 McDermott v R (1948) 76 CLR 501 McPherson v R (1981) 147 CLR 519 Pollard v R (1992) 176 CLR 177 R v Cleary (1963) 48 Cr App R 116 R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321 R v Plotzki [1972] Qd R 379 R v Tie Tie [2011] QSC 166 Swaffield v R (1997) 192 CLR 159 Van Der Meer v R (1988) 35 A Crim R 232
COUNSEL:	Ms S. Dennis for the crown Mr J. Fraser for defendant
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown Northside lawyers for the defendant