The Queen v Grant [2007] NTSC 50
PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
GRANT, David Ian
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO: 20623974
DELIVERED: 11 October 2007
HEARING DATES: 9 & 10 October 2007
JUDGMENT OF: OLSSON AJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – evidence – voir dire – admissibility of three records of interview – whether the accused was so intoxicated as to render him incapable of rationally making a free choice as to whether to speak or remain silent – whether adequate caution given as to the nature of the interview – whether removal of accused from remand centre of Alice Springs Correctional Centre into custody of police officers was unlawful - Whether failure to contact the legal representative of the accused prior to interview resulted in unfairness to the accused.
Police Administration Act 1994 (NT)
Prisons (Correctional Services) Act 1996 (NT)
Cited:
Bara (1998) 106 A Crim R 1;
Dumoo v Garner (1997) 7 NTLR 129
R v Echo (1997) 136 FLR 451;
Regina v Kirk [2000] 1 WLR 567;
Kirkman v Moore [2001] NTSC 33;
The King v Lee (1959) 82 CLR 133;
The Queen v Miller (1980) 25 SASR 170
Murielle and Others v Moore and Another [2000] NTSC 23;
The Queen v Ostojic (1978) 18 SASR 188;
Ridgeway (1995) 78 A Crim R 307;
R v Smith (1992) 58 SASR 491;
The Queen v Swaffield (1997) 192 CLR 159
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown: Dr N Rogers
Defence: M O’Connell
Solicitors:
Crown: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defence: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: Ols
Number of pages: 33
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
The Queen v Grant [2007] NTSC 50
No 20623974
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Crown
AND:
GRANT, David Ian
Defence
CORAM: OLSSON AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 11 October 2007)
Introduction
[1] The accused stands charged with having murdered Richard Freeman on 16 September 2006. The Crown asserts that, at about 10.00 pm on that day, the accused inflicted two stab wounds on Freeman with a knife, as a consequence of which he died.
[2] The stabbing occurred at Unit 2, 56 Bradshaw Drive, Alice Springs, where the accused lived. The evidence indicates that, as at the date of his death, the deceased had, apparently at the invitation of the accused, also resided at the unit for about two years.
[3] The two men were said to have met at the Salvos. I infer that neither of them were employed. Certainly, it seems that the accused had suffered a severe neck injury at some stage, for which he regularly took potent pain killing medication. The personal situation of the deceased does not readily emerge at this stage.
[4] Police arrived at the Unit some time after 11.00 pm., at which point the accused was observed to approach the…
Continue reading The Queen v Grant
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- The Queen v Grant [2007] NTSC 50
- Case
- [2007] NTSC 50
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances of Mr Grant's interviews, focusing on the level of intoxication and its impact on his decision-making capacity. It considered whether the caution given to Mr Grant was sufficient and whether the removal from the correctional centre into police custody was in accordance with legal standards. The court also assessed whether the absence of communication with Mr Grant's legal representative constituted a significant procedural error.
The court found that some of the evidence obtained during the interviews was inadmissible due to the circumstances surrounding Mr Grant's intoxication and the failure to properly caution him. The court concluded that Mr Grant's intoxication significantly impaired his ability to make rational decisions, and the lack of contact with his legal representative added to the unfairness of the process. The court's decision to exclude certain evidence was based on these findings, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and the protection of the accused's rights during police interviews.
The final orders of the court were that some of the evidence obtained from Mr Grant during the interviews was to be excluded from the trial, reflecting the court's determination that the process by which this evidence was obtained was flawed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Some evidence excluded.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.