Tasmania v Thompson - [2022] TASSC 27

[2022] TASSC 27

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 27
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
THOMPSON, Jeffrey Ian
FILE NO:	374/2017
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:	28, 29, 30, 31 March 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

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 during conversation in course of execution of search warrant – Caution administered but accused not informed he was a suspect – Whether evidence should be excluded as improperly obtained – Whether in any event evidence should be excluded in exercise of discretion because its use would be unfair to the accused – Evidence admitted.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 90, 138.
Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46, 232 CLR 67, Wilkie v Barnaba [2021] TASSC 21, applied.
R v Murphy [1996] 66 SASR 406, considered and distinguished.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2693]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: L Mason SC, E Bill
Respondent: D Edwardson QC, F Merenda,

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Munro and Associates

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASSC 27
Number of paragraphs:	20

Serial No 27/2022 File No 374/2017

STATE OF TASMANIA v JEFFREY IAN THOMPSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	BRETT J
DELIVERED ORALLY	28 April 2022

1 This ruling concerns the accused's objection to evidence of a conversation between police officers and him during and immediately after a search of his premises conducted pursuant to a search warrant on 8 August 2017. The prosecution asserts that the conversation is admissible because the accused makes certain admissions, as well as statements and other conduct which the prosecution says is consistent with a consciousness of guilt. The defence submits that the evidence was obtained in consequence of an impropriety on the part of the police and accordingly must be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act 2001, and further or in the alternative, that the evidence should be excluded under s 90 of the Act because it would be unfair to use that evidence against the accused in his trial.
2 The objective facts surrounding the relevant conversation are not in dispute. Further, the validity of the search warrant is not in issue. The warrant authorised the search of the accused's home in respect of "all material (documentary and electronic) pertaining to Meghan Vass, Stephen Gleeson and Karen Keefe relevant to the murder of Robert Chappell, including but not limited to emails references statements photographs affidavits notes diary entries and contracts". The warrant specified that this evidential material related to the offence of perverting justice, contrary to s 105 of the Criminal Code.
3 The entire search, and the conversations which occurred during its course, were video recorded by the police. I have watched the recording on the voir dire. Upon…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 27
Case: [2022] TASSC 27
Decision Date: 28 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania v Thompson is a case where the appellant, Mr Thompson, was convicted of several drug-related offences. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have excluded certain evidence obtained during a police interrogation. The court was required to decide whether the evidence was improperly obtained, and if its use would be unfair to the accused. This required an analysis of the police conduct during the interrogation and the circumstances in which the statements were made.

The court examined the police conduct during the interrogation and the circumstances surrounding the admissions made by Mr Thompson. It was established that the caution was administered but Mr Thompson was not informed that he was a suspect. The court needed to determine whether this constituted an improper obtaining of evidence and whether the evidence should be excluded under judicial discretion. The court also considered whether, even if the evidence was not improperly obtained, its use would be unfair to the accused. The court held that the evidence should not be excluded as improperly obtained, as the failure to inform Mr Thompson that he was a suspect did not vitiate the caution given. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence should not be excluded in the exercise of discretion because its use would be unfair to the accused.

In summary, the court found that the evidence obtained during the police interrogation should not be excluded. The court determined that the failure to inform Mr Thompson that he was a suspect did not render the caution ineffective and therefore did not constitute an improper obtaining of evidence. Additionally, the court concluded that the use of the evidence would not be unfair to the accused. Consequently, the evidence was admitted.

Orders