Tasmania v Stebbings - [2015] TASSC 9

[2015] TASSC 9

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Stebbings [2015] TASSC 9

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  STEBBINGS, Aaron John

FILE NO:  176/2013
DELIVERED ON:  29 January 2015
HEARING DATE/S:  2, 4, 5 December 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Porter J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Discretion to exclude confessional statements – Evidence of admissions made during official questioning not admissible in certain proceedings unless there is an audio-visual record – Admissions made about drug possession during search of vehicle commenced for other purposes – Whether official questioning – Whether evidence of admissions admissible.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 85A.
R v NAA (2009) 76 NSWLR 271, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2687]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Discretion to exclude confessional statements – Propriety of police questioning and other conduct by police – Administering caution – Admissions made about drug possession during search of vehicle commenced for other purposes – Need for caution – Effect of failure to caution – Whether evidence should be excluded as improperly obtained.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 138, 139.
R v NAA (2009) 76 NSWLR 271, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2693]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Discretion to exclude confessional statements – Propriety of police questioning and other conduct by police – Administering caution – Accused interviewed as a witness about death of a person in his car – General caution at commencement of interview – Accused answered questions about the death but refused to answer later questions about possession of drugs found in car – Accused understood that what he said about the death would not be used in relation to drug possession – Whether unfair to use in drug trial evidence of statements made when speaking about the death.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s 90.
Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67, followed.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2693]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  L Mason
             Accused:  P Morgan
Solicitors:
             State:  Acting Director of Public Prosecution

Accused: Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

Judgment Number [2015] TASSC 9
Number of paragraphs: 76

Serial No 9/2015
File No 176/2013

STATE OF TASMANIA v AARON JOHN STEBBINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PORTER J

29 January 2015

Introduction

The accused has pleaded not guilty to two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance and one count of dealing with the proceeds of crime. It is alleged that on 20 April 2013 he trafficked in methylamphetamine and MDMA, and dealt with $20,000 being the proceeds of crime, knowing that it was proceeds of crime. The charges arise from him allegedly being in possession of the controlled substances and $20,000 in cash on the day in question.
These are proceedings under s 361A of the Criminal Code for determinations in relation to the admissibility…

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 Stebbings

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Stebbings [2015] TASSC 9
Case: [2015] TASSC 9
Decision Date: 29 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Stebbings involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained during a police interrogation. The defendant, Stebbings, was questioned by police officers and made admissions relating to drug possession during a search of his vehicle. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The primary legal issue was whether the admissions made during the police interrogation were admissible in court, given that there was no audio-visual record of the questioning. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the questioning was an official one and whether the admissions could be admitted under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Tas).
The court examined the nature of the questioning and the circumstances in which the admissions were made. It found that the questioning was not an official one, as it was not conducted for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence from the defendant. Instead, the search of the vehicle was initiated for other reasons, and the admissions were made during the course of that search. As a result, the court held that the evidence of the admissions was not subject to the requirements of the Evidence Act 2008 (Tas), which mandate an audio-visual record for confessional statements obtained during official questioning. Consequently, the evidence of the admissions was deemed admissible.
In conclusion, the court found that the admissions made during the police interrogation were admissible, as the questioning was not an official one and there was no requirement for an audio-visual record. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Tas). The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the text, but it is likely that the admissions were admitted as evidence in the proceedings against the defendant.

Orders