Taylor v The King

[2024] NSWDC 572

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Taylor v R [2024] NSWDC 572

Hearing dates:

30 October 2024

Date of orders:

29 November 2024

Decision date:

29 November 2024

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Scotting DCJ

Decision:

(1)   The appeal against the conviction is dismissed.

(2)   I confirm the penalty imposed by the magistrate.

(3) Pursuant to s 68 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 the Community Corrections Order imposed by the magistrate is to take effect from 5 April 2024.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Evidence Act 1995

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

Cases Cited:

Farah Constructions v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89

R v Keenan [2009] HCA 1

State of New South Wales v Bouffler (2018) 95 NSWLR 521

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Luke Taylor (Appellant)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (Appellant)

File Number(s):

2023/195169

Publication restriction:

None

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Downing Centre

Jurisdiction:

Local Court

Date of Decision:

5 April 2024

Before:

Magistrate Quinn

File Number(s):

2023/195169

Judgment

1. On 5 April 2024, Luke Taylor (the appellant) was convicted of an offence of larceny contrary to s 117 Crimes Act 1900, by her Honour Magistrate Quinn (the magistrate) sitting at the Sydney Downing Centre Local Court. The appellant brings an appeal as of right against the conviction.

2. The appeal turns on a legal argument. It is not necessary to set out the principles governing this kind of appeal and it can be dealt with in relatively short compass.

3. The appellant contended that the police unlawfully entered his room at a hostel and seized the stolen electric bike and clothing allegedly worn by the appellant when he was seen on CCTV footage to take the bike, and that the evidence about the seizure of those items from the appellant’s possession should have been excluded because it was illegally obtained: s 138 Evidence Act 1995. The appellant submitted that without that evidence, the prosecution cannot prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The appellant’s argument was that the arresting police officer, Constable Greaves, failed to properly satisfy herself that the appellant’s arrest was “reasonably necessary” (s 99(3)) and thereby the power to arrest without a warrant under s 99 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) was not enlivened and thereby the power to enter the appellant’s room to arrest him under s 10 of LEPRA was also (and derivatively) not enlivened.

5. During the course of the argument on the appeal, reference was made to the Court of Appeal’s decision in State of New South Wales v Bouffler (2018) 95 NSWLR 521, which dealt with the interaction between ss 10 and 99 of LEPRA in the context of a civil claim for trespass to land and trespass to the person arising from the entry of a large number of police into the respondent’s residence to arrest him.

6. In