The Queen v Pearsall - [2010] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Pearsall [2010] QDC 177

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(Applicant)

v

JARED RAYMOND PEARSALL

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

982/09

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

25 January 2010, 2 March 2010, 24 March 2010

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

Order that evidence of any admissions made by the applicant in his unrecorded interview with Mercer and Allard, evidence of the applicant’s recorded interview with McCoombes and Watson, and the written statement given by the applicant on 5 March 2009, not be admissible at the applicant’s trial.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – where a preliminary interview between police officers and the applicant was not recorded – where police officers did not follow the correct procedure before questioning the applicant – whether admissions made by the applicant are admissible in those circumstances.

Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld)
Police Powers and Responibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
Police Responsibilities Code 2000 (Qld)

Bunning v Cross (1977-1978) 141 CLR 54.

McKinney v R (1991) CLR 468.

R v Plotzki [1972] QdR 379.

REPRESENTATIVES:

E P Mac Giolla Ri of Counsel for the applicant/defendant

R J Copley of Counsel for the respondent/prosecution

Howden Saggers, Solicitors, for the applicant

Office of DPP, Ipswich for the respondent

Background

Ramon Beggs made a complaint to police that his Nissan Patrol had been stolen from Wildey Street in Raceview and set alight on 7 November 2008. During the investigation police learnt that Beggs had made an insurance claim from AAMI for his vehicle.

The applicant is a 22 year old soldier serving as a logistics truck driver in the Australian Defence Force at the Amberley RAAF base. He knows Beggs who also works at the base. On 5 March 2009 the applicant was called to the office of his commanding officer and told that he had to go to the Ipswich police station. The applicant was taken to the police station by a sergeant and met up with his immediate superior, Lieutenant Harding at the police station.

It seems two plain clothes police officers from the arson squad (Mercer and Allard), spoke initially in private to the applicant’s senior officers before his superiors left the police station.

The applicant was then spoken to in an interview room by Mercer and Allard. Although this room was fitted with recording equipment, the conversation between the applicant and these officers was not recorded.

Subsequently the applicant was interviewed in the same room by two uniformed officers (McCoombes and Watson) which conversation was recorded. In that interview the applicant made admissions to the police that at Beggs’ request he had driven the vehicle to Ripley Road, tipped fuel around the interior and set it alight. Some weeks later Beggs gave him $4000 in cash for burning the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the recorded interview Watson took a written statement from the applicant in which he again made admissions.

The…

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 The Queen v Pearsall

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Pearsall [2010] QDC 177
Case: [2010] QDC 177
Decision Date: 29 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pearsall, faced criminal charges and sought to exclude certain evidence obtained during his interactions with police officers. The proceedings took place in the relevant court, where the primary focus was on the admissibility of statements made by the applicant during unrecorded and recorded interviews, as well as a written statement. The applicant argued that the admissions made during the unrecorded interview were inadmissible because the police officers did not follow the correct procedure before questioning him. Additionally, the applicant claimed that the recorded interview and the written statement should also be excluded due to the manner in which the evidence was obtained.

The court was tasked with determining whether the admissions made by the applicant during the unrecorded interview were admissible, considering the procedural irregularities. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the recorded interview and the written statement should be excluded based on the circumstances of their procurement. The central legal issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence obtained through police questioning that did not adhere to the required procedures.

The court ruled in favour of the applicant, finding that the admissions made during the unrecorded interview were inadmissible due to the police officers' failure to follow the correct procedure. The court held that the evidence obtained through the unrecorded interview, the recorded interview, and the written statement were tainted by the procedural irregularities and thus should not be admissible at the applicant's trial. Consequently, the court ordered that the evidence of the unrecorded interview, the recorded interview, and the written statement not be admitted as evidence in the applicant's trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that evidence of any admissions made by the applicant in his unrecorded interview with Mercer and Allard, evidence of the applicant’s recorded interview with McCoombes and Watson, and the written statement given by the applicant on 5 March 2009, not be admissible at the applicant’s trial.

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.

CITATION:	The Queen v Pearsall [2010] QDC 177
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (Applicant) v JARED RAYMOND PEARSALL (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	982/09
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	25 January 2010, 2 March 2010, 24 March 2010
JUDGE:	Bradley DCJ
ORDER:	Order that evidence of any admissions made by the applicant in his unrecorded interview with Mercer and Allard, evidence of the applicant’s recorded interview with McCoombes and Watson, and the written statement given by the applicant on 5 March 2009, not be admissible at the applicant’s trial.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – COURSE OF EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS AND ADDRESSES – where a preliminary interview between police officers and the applicant was not recorded – where police officers did not follow the correct procedure before questioning the applicant – whether admissions made by the applicant are admissible in those circumstances. Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld) Police Powers and Responibilities Act 2000 (Qld) Police Responsibilities Code 2000 (Qld) Bunning v Cross (1977-1978) 141 CLR 54. McKinney v R (1991) CLR 468. R v Plotzki [1972] QdR 379.
REPRESENTATIVES:	E P Mac Giolla Ri of Counsel for the applicant/defendant R J Copley of Counsel for the respondent/prosecution Howden Saggers, Solicitors, for the applicant Office of DPP, Ipswich for the respondent