R v Climie

Claudine Tapita Climie was convicted in the District Court of possession of cannabis oil for the purpose of supply. The conviction was based on evidence obtained during a search of the appellant’s home. The search was conducted by Sergeant Hessell under section 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, after he overheard a conversation about hiding drugs and saw a female pick up a pink handbag and hide it under a mattress. The appellant challenged the admissibility of the evidence on the basis that the search was unlawful. The District Court judge accepted that the search was unlawful, but nevertheless admitted the evidence as the exclusion of the evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety. The appellant sought leave to appeal that decision. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Judge had erred in concluding that the public interest in an effective and credible system of justice outweighed the need to vindicate the breach in this case, and whether the breach by the police in this case was the most significant. The Court of Appeal found that while the nature of the privacy interest was high, the search was focused and limited and to that extent the seriousness of the intrusion was lessened. The Court of Appeal also found that the breach by the police officer in this case was not committed in bad faith or with reckless disregard of the appellant’s rights, nor can it be described as grossly careless. The Court of Appeal found that the Judge was correct to come to the view that public interest in an effective and credible system of justice outweighed the need to vindicate the breach so that exclusion of the evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The appellant was found guilty of possession of cannabis oil for the purpose of supply.