Regina v John Blaikie [2006] NSWDC 200

Regina v John Blaikie [2006] NSWDC 200

The police had a reasonable suspicion within s.357E Crimes Act 1900 because the accused was known for domestic breaking, entering and stealing offences, had a known modus operandi, was under surveillance, was observed acting consistently with that modus operandi in Russell Street, and was later stopped with his vehicle after surveillance information had been communicated to the officers directing the interception. The stopping, detention and search were not random or speculative, no impropriety was shown, and the evidence was not obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law, so s.138 Evidence Act 1995 did not require exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Application to Exclude Evidence at the Commencement of Trial
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'search and Detention' 'reasonable Suspicion' 'identification or Recognition Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'search and Detention' 'reasonable Suspicion' 'identification or Recognition Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Improperly or Illegally Obtained Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Application to Exclude Evidence at the Commencement of Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence obtained from the search of the accused and his motor vehicle should be excluded on the basis that the search was illegal under s.357E Crimes Act 1900 and therefore caught by s.138 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether identification or recognition evidence from surveillance officers should be excluded for non-compliance with the Evidence Act 1995, particularly s.114.']

Ratio Decidendi

The police had a reasonable suspicion within s.357E Crimes Act 1900 because the accused was known for domestic breaking, entering and stealing offences, had a known modus operandi, was under surveillance, was observed acting consistently with that modus operandi in Russell Street, and was later stopped with his vehicle after surveillance information had been communicated to the officers directing the interception. The stopping, detention and search were not random or speculative, no impropriety was shown, and the evidence was not obtained improperly or in contravention of Australian law, so s.138 Evidence Act 1995 did not require exclusion.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the search of the accused and the vehicle over which he had control ought not be excluded.']