Tasmania v Goss - [2018] TASSC 20

[2018] TASSC 20

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Goss [2018] TASSC 20

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  GOSS, Christopher Michael

FILE NO:  197/2015
DELIVERED ON:  13 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  2 September 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Propriety of police questioning and other conduct by police – Administering caution – Particular cases – Incomplete caution – Arrested person not told of right not to say anything.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 138.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2693]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  A Shand
             Accused:  G Stevens
Solicitors:
             State:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 20
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 20/2018
File No 197/2015

STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GOSS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

13 September 2016

The accused, Christopher Goss, has pleaded not guilty to a charge of receiving stolen property. During March 2015 police officers visited his home and conducted a search. Inside a shed, which had been locked, they found a Kobelco excavator with two spare buckets and a pair of trailer ramps. The Crown contends that all these items had been stolen, that the accused had possession of them, and that he knew them to be stolen. On the day of the search, the accused was questioned by Sgt Adrian Leary, the officer in charge of the New Norfolk Police Station, first at his home and then at the Bridgewater Police Station. The interview at Bridgewater was audio-visually recorded. The Crown wish to tender an edited DVD recording of that interview on the trial, but counsel for the accused has objected. The accused was not given the usual caution. He made admissions during the interview at Bridgewater, but contends that the evidence of those admissions was improperly obtained, and that no evidence of the interview should be admitted. I agreed to make a determination as to the objection pursuant to s 361A of the Criminal Code before the empanelment of the jury.
At the beginning of the interview, Sgt Leary gave the accused a caution in the following terms:
"Um, before I ask you any questions in relation to these matters um, I will let you know that you are, you are being recorded, this interview's being recorded and anything that you say or do may be given as evidence for you [sic] in court."
He did not tell the accused that he did not have to say or do anything during the interview.
The accused was under arrest at the time of the interview. Sgt Leary, who conducted the questioning, was empowered to arrest him. In those circumstances, s 139(1)(c) provides that evidence of a statement made by a person during questioning is taken to have been obtained improperly if "before starting the questioning the investigating official [Sgt Leary] did not caution the person [the accused] that the person does…

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 Tasmania v Goss

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Goss [2018] TASSC 20
Case: [2018] TASSC 20
Decision Date: 13 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tasmania v Goss, the appellant was convicted of charges related to the illegal possession of firearms. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the lower court erred in excluding evidence obtained during an interrogation in which the police failed to administer a complete caution to the accused. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the exclusion of this evidence was appropriate given the incomplete caution and the other conduct of the police during the interrogation.

The legal issue centred on the application of the judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence obtained through police interrogation. The court considered whether the incomplete caution and other improper conduct by the police during the interrogation warranted the exclusion of the evidence obtained. This required an examination of the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained from a suspect who was not fully informed of their rights during an interrogation. The court also needed to balance the need to protect an individual's rights against the potential impact of excluding relevant evidence on the administration of justice.

The court held that the lower court did not err in excluding the evidence obtained from the interrogation. The incomplete caution and the other improper conduct by the police during the interrogation were significant enough to warrant the exclusion of the evidence. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that an accused person is fully informed of their rights during a police interrogation, and that the failure to do so can have serious consequences for the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to protect the rights of the accused. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

Orders