Regina v Leigh Jason McKeough [2003] NSWCCA 385

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Leigh Jason McKeough [2003] NSWCCA 385 HEARING DATE(S) : 03/12/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 48, 62; Dunford J at 1; Hidden J at 61 DECISION : Appeal allowed. Evidence of search of motor vehicle and of electronically recorded interview admissible in trial of respondent. Matter remitted to District Court for continuation of Respondent's trial.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - evidence - illegally obtained evidence - discretion to admit - exercise of Crimes Act 1900 s 357E LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 5F Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1986 s 25(1) Evidence Act 1995 s 138 Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 CASES CITED : House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540, 126 A Crim R 562 PARTIES : Regina v Leigh Jason McKeough FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60281/03 COUNSEL : G I O Rowling (Crown) B Pullinger (Appellant) SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor (Crown)

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 03/11/0442 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Coorey DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

- 12 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60281/03

SPIGELMAN CJ DUNFORD J HIDDEN J

WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER 2003 R v LEIGH JASON McKEOUGH Judgment 1 DUNFORD J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against orders made by his Honour Judge Coorey in the District Court at Sydney ruling inadmissible evidence of the finding of 27.44 grams of Methylamphetamine, two resealable plastic bags and a foil in a motor vehicle driven by the respondent, and the contents of an electronically recorded interview with the respondent following his subsequent arrest on the same day. His Honour held that the search of the respondent's vehicle which resulted in the finding of the drugs was illegal, being not authorised by s 357E of the Crimes Act 1900, and that consequently the finding of the drugs and the admissions made by the respondent in the interview was improperly or illegally obtained evidence within the terms of s 138 of the Evidence Act 1995.