R v Golja

[2017] SASCFC 61

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Warrants, arrest, search, seizure and incidental powers
4. › Search warrants
5. › Issue and validity
6. › Reasonable grounds to suspect
7. › Whether suspicion founded on partly inaccurate information was objectively reasonable
8. › Whether nexus between evidence found in vehicle and suspect's residence sufficient to ground suspicion
9. › Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 67(4)(a)(iii)
1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility
3. › Discretion to exclude illegally or improperly obtained evidence
4. › Public policy discretion
5. › Bunning v Cross discretion
6. › Factors relevant to exercise of discretion
7. › Whether absence of conscious impropriety and seriousness of offending favoured admission
8. › Whether offending already committed rather than procured by police conduct

Quick Take

A police officer's suspicion founded on information subsequently discovered to be wrong does not negative the existence of the suspicion or its reasonableness for the purposes of executing a search warrant under s 67(4)(a)(iii) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). Discovery of evidence of drug trafficking in a person's vehicle can ground a reasonable suspicion that further evidence may be found at that person's residence. Where unlawful police conduct in obtaining evidence results from a mistake rather than conscious impropriety, and the offending had already occurred rather than being procured by police, the Bunning v Cross discretion will generally favour admission of the evidence.