Tasmania v Woodberry - [2012] TASSC 89

[2012] TASSC 89

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Woodberry [2012] TASSC 89

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, State of
  v
  WOODBERRY, Kathryn Anne

FILE NO:  186/2012
DELIVERED ON:  24 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  13 September 2012
DETERMINATION OF:                  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Police interrogation – Propriety of police questioning and other conduct by police – Other cases – Official questioning not audio-visually recorded – Search at arrested person's home without warrant or permission – Interview of arrested person – Failure to advise of right to communicate with friend, relative or legal practitioner.
Criminal Law (Detention and Interrogation) Act 1995 (Tas), s6(1).
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss85A(1), 90, 138.
Police Service Act 2003 (Tas), s42(3)(a).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2701]
Criminal Law – Evidence – Confessions and admissions – Statements – Records of interview – Electronic recording – Official questioning before formal interview.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s85A(1)(b), (d).
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2753]

Criminal Law – Procedure – Warrants, arrest, search, seizure and incidental powers – Arrest and detention – Effecting arrest – Generally – What constitutes arrest – Suspect accompanying police for search at her home.

Alderson v Booth [1969] 2 QB 216, applied.
Sammak v R (1993) 2 Tas R 339, distinguished.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2973]

REPRESENTATION:

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

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 89
Number of paragraphs: 59

Serial No 89/2012
File No 168/2012

STATE OF TASMANIA v KATHRYN ANNE WOODBERRY

REASONS FOR DETERMINATION BLOW J

24 September 2012

I have been asked to make determinations as to the admission or exclusion of some pieces of evidence prior to the empanelment of a jury pursuant to the Criminal Code, s361A. The accused has been charged on a single count of stealing. She has been arraigned, and has pleaded not guilty to that charge. It is alleged that at Devonport on 12 December 2011 she stole $13,439.20 in cash, and cheques to the value of $70,528.30, from her employer, Gowans Motor Group Pty Ltd. At that time she was working as a receptionist for that company. One of her duties was to do the company's banking. The Crown case is that, on the day in question, she took the cash and cheques to the company's bank as usual, pretended to deposit them with a deposit slip in the drawer of a drop box in accordance with her usual routine, secretly kept the cash and the cheques, left the bank, disposed of the cheques, and kept the cash for herself.

Nine days after the day of the alleged theft, on 21 December at about 3.10pm, two detectives visited the accused while she was at work. They were Detective Sergeant Jordan and Detective Senior Constable Rolls. They spoke to her at her reception desk, then had a private conversation with her in a room near her desk,…

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 Woodberry

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Woodberry [2012] TASSC 89
Case: [2012] TASSC 89
Decision Date: 24 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tasmania v Woodberry, the defendant was charged with drug-related offences. The primary issues before the court revolved around the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police investigation, specifically concerning the propriety of police conduct during an interrogation and the search of the defendant's home without a warrant or permission. The court had to determine whether the evidence should be admitted or excluded due to breaches of legal procedures during the investigation.

The court examined whether the police conduct during the interrogation and the subsequent search of the defendant's home complied with legal standards. Key considerations included whether the police had properly advised the defendant of their rights, such as the right to communicate with a friend, relative, or legal practitioner. Additionally, the court assessed the impact of the police questioning and whether it influenced the defendant's statements. The court also evaluated whether the failure to record the interrogation audio-visually affected the reliability of the evidence.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that the evidence obtained during the police interrogation and the subsequent search of the defendant's home should be excluded. The court found that the police had not properly advised the defendant of their rights, and their conduct during the interrogation was improper. Furthermore, the search of the defendant's home was conducted without a warrant or permission, which violated legal standards. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained was inadmissible due to these breaches.

The court ordered that the drug-related charges against the defendant be dismissed due to the exclusion of the evidence. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures during police investigations to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in court.

Orders