The Queen v Grant

Case [2007] NTSC 50


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

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Grant [2007] NTSC 50
Case
[2007] NTSC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against Grant in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The central issue in the case was the admissibility of three records of interview that had been conducted with the accused, Mr Grant, following his arrest. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Grant was so intoxicated during these interviews that he was unable to make a rational decision about whether to speak or remain silent, whether he had been adequately cautioned about the nature of the interview, and if the removal of Mr Grant from the Alice Springs Correctional Centre into police custody was lawful. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the failure to contact Mr Grant's legal representative prior to the interview rendered the process unfair to him.

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.