Rigby v Ian Alimankinni - [2021] NTLC 38

CITATION:RIGBY V IAN ALIMANKINNI [2021] NTLC 038
PARTIES:Kerry Leanne Rigby
V
Ian Ross Alimankinni

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL
FILE NO(s):22012454
DELIVERED ON:  10 December 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Darwin
HEARING DATE(s):  12 & 19 November 2021
DECISION OF:  Greg Macdonald
CATCHWORDS:
Police Administration Act – s120C – Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act – s138.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Complainant:      Mr J Bainbridge
Defendant:          Ms B Wild

Solicitors:
Complainant: DPP
Defendant: NAAJA

Decision category classification:  B
Decision ID number:  NTLC038
Number of paragraphs:  42

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 22012454

BETWEEN:
Kerry Leanne RIGBY
Complainant
AND
Ian Ross ALIMANKINNI
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 10 December 2021)

JUDGE MACDONALD:

Background

On 19 November 2021 I gave oral findings in this proceeding, which ultimately included a finding of guilt against the defendant Ian Ross Alimankinni (Defendant), with written reasons to be published. These are those reasons.
The Defendant was on 16 April 2020 charged with one count of possess scheduled 2 less than trafficable quantity, in contravention of s 7D(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. On 12 November 2021 the Defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, and a contested hearing conducted on a voir dire basis ensued.
Various of the facts involved were not contentious, due to agreed facts becoming exhibit P1. Relevantly, the agreed facts include that on 15 April 2020 the Defendant and three other Tiwi island men travelled by 4.5m dinghy under the 'captaincy' of Mr Ronald Cunningham from Wurrumiyanga to Tree Point on the mainland to collect Mr Robert Cunningham. On arriving at the mainland none of the five occupants disembarked. Mr Robert Cunningham arrived to embark in due course, accompanied by another three men, including Mr Jimmy Brown aka Cooper.
The small vessel departed the mainland carrying nine men, but broke down at 9:30pm shortly prior to reaching Wurrumiyanga. After being towed to Front Beach "the defendant was driven back to Wurrumiyanga police station and cautioned by Sgt Peter Linfield", following which "a search of the defendant’s person was conducted by Senior Constable Jack Mather" and “during the search, the defendant reached into the front of his underpants and pulled out a small white plastic bag with grey duct tape wrapped around the outside".
That package proved to contain two packs of playing cards and 24.69gm of cannabis in a clip seal bag.[1] The Defendant was subsequently arrested, and also returned a positive BAC of .247%.[2]
Other evidence admitted by agreement were photographs of the package surrendered from inside the Defendant’s underpants, a Forensic Science Branch certificate showing the content of the package to be 24.69 g of cannabis, the written statement of Sgt Sarah Hutchinson who received and exhibited the package, examined its contents, and also breath tested the Defendant, and a written statement of Mr Ronald Cunningham, the skipper of the dinghy (exhibits P2 through the P5 respectively).
It is also not in dispute that on…

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 Rigby v Ian Alimankinni

Details

AGLC: Rigby v Ian Alimankinni [2021] NTLC 38
Case: [2021] NTLC 38
Decision Date: 10 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rigby v Ian Alimankinni involved the plaintiff, Rigby, who sought to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful search conducted by the defendant, Ian Alimankinni, who was a police officer. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Rigby argued that the evidence obtained during the unlawful search should be excluded from the proceedings under the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act.

The court was required to decide whether the evidence obtained through the unlawful search by the police officer should be excluded under the provisions of the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether section 138 of the Evidence Act, which pertains to the exclusion of evidence obtained improperly, applied in this instance. Additionally, the court needed to consider the obligations imposed on police officers under section 120C of the Police Administration Act, which mandates adherence to legal procedures during searches.

In addressing the matter, the court examined the nature of the search and whether it complied with the statutory requirements. The court found that the search was conducted without proper authorisation, breaching the provisions of the Police Administration Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the evidence obtained from this unlawful search was inadmissible under section 138 of the Evidence Act. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory obligations placed on police officers and the necessity to uphold the integrity of the judicial process by excluding improperly obtained evidence.

The court's decision was that the evidence obtained through the unlawful search was inadmissible, and it ordered that this evidence be excluded from the proceedings. This ruling underscored the importance of procedural compliance by law enforcement officers and the legal framework's role in safeguarding individual rights against unlawful state actions.

Orders