Thomas v Watson - [2006] NTMC 98

CITATION: Thomas v Watson [2006] NTMC 098

PARTIES: PETER MARK THOMAS
(INFORMANT/COMPLAINANT)

SAMUEL WATSON
(DEFENDANT)

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Summary Jurisdiction

FILE NO(s): 20216090; 20216092; 20215349

DELIVERED ON: 29 September 2006
REPUBLISHED ON: 12 December 2006

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 7, 8 November 2005; 20, 21 March2006;
9 June 2006: 8, 28 August 2006, 11 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Jenny Blokland CM

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANT – CONFESSION – VOLUNTARINESS – COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION – RECORDING OF SECOND INTERVIEW MISSING – ADMISSIBILITY OF FIRST PART

Criminal Code, s229
Misuse of Drugs Act, s5(1)
Police Administration Act, ss117(2), 143, 140
Police General Orders Q1, Q2
George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104
The Queen v Tillett; ex parte Newton [1969] FLR 101
R v Jervis (1998) SASR 429
Zanet v Hentchke (1988) 33 A Crim R 51
R v Edlesten (1990) 21 NSWLR 542
Collins v R (1980) 31 ALR 257
Cleland v R (1982) 151 CLR 1
Van Der Meer v The Queen (1988) 82 ALR 10
Spence v Demasi (1988) 48 SASR 536
Butera (1987) 30 A Crim R 417
Gardner v Dune (1978) 14 ALR 695
R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Informant: Ms Heske
Defendant: Mr Loizou

Solicitors:
Informant: ODPP
Defendant: NAAJA

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2006] NTMC 098
Number of paragraphs: 38

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20216090, 20216092, 20215349

BETWEEN:

PETER MARK THOMAS
(Informant/Complainant)

AND:

SAMUEL WATSON
Defendant

REASONS FOR RULING ON THE SEARCH WARRANT

(Delivered 29 September 2006)

Jenny Blokland CM:

Introduction

1. These reasons concern a number of rulings made during the course of a hearing concerning charges brought against Mr Samuel James Watson for offences alleged to have been committed by him in 2001 and 2002. Mr Watson has entered pleas of Not Guilty to a charge that between 1 and 6 April 2001 he received six rifles knowing they had been obtained by means of a crime, namely stealing contrary to section 229 of the Criminal Code; that he supplied cannabis to a person or persons unknown contrary to section 5(1) Misuse of Drugs Acts; that he received sidchrome spanners that had been obtained by means of a crime, (namely stealing) contrary to section 229 Criminal Code; a further count of unlawful supply of cannabis to a person or persons unknown; a further count of receiving a wheelbarrow and a grease gun, and a further count of supply cannabis to a person or persons unknown during the same time period (file 20215349). He also pleaded Not Guilty to another count of receiving alleged to have occurred between the 3 April 2001 and 6 April 2001 concerning collectable toy trucks and other items and a further count of unlawful supply of cannabis to a person or persons unknown, (file 20216090). He pleaded Guilty to one count of stealing alleged to have occurred on 6…

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 Thomas v Watson

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Watson [2006] NTMC 098
Case: [2006] NTMC 98
Decision Date: 29 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Thomas v Watson, heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, involved a number of charges against Samuel Watson, including receiving stolen property, supplying cannabis, and unlawful possession of firearms. The case primarily focused on the admissibility of evidence obtained through a search warrant and the voluntariness of a confession made by the defendant. The court was tasked with determining whether the search warrant was validly issued and whether the confession obtained during a recorded conversation was voluntary and admissible.

The court ruled that the search warrant was validly issued as the information laid before the justice provided reasonable grounds for believing that stolen property was present at the specified location. The court found that the information was sufficient to justify the issuing of the warrant, as it detailed specific stolen items identified by the victim at the defendant's premises. The court also considered the reliability of the sources and the consistency of the information, concluding that the warrant was properly executed.

Regarding the confession, the court faced the challenge of admitting a partially recorded conversation where one of the tapes did not contain any sound. The court considered the voluntariness of the confession and the fairness of admitting the partial recording. The court found that the confession was voluntary as the defendant was not under duress or pressure and had shown a degree of bravado during the questioning. However, the court ruled that the partial recording could not be admitted as it would be unfair to the defendant to rely on recollections of the content of the conversation without the full recording being available. The court acknowledged the difficulty in ensuring procedural fairness in the absence of the complete recording, and thus decided not to admit the recollections of the conversation from the missing tape.

The court admitted the portion of the recording that was available and found it not misleading or skewed in the absence of the full conversation. The court also noted that the evidence concerning the search warrant would not be admissible in the hearing of the charges due to its hearsay nature but was necessary to establish the validity of the warrant.

In summary, the court ruled that the search warrant was valid, and while the confession was found to be voluntary, the partial recording was not admissible due to the missing content. The court scheduled a further date to continue the hearing.

Orders