Police v Brown and Sankovic [2009] NSWLC 24

Police v Brown and Sankovic [2009] NSWLC 24

The defendants knew the police were looking for the Banditos motorcycle ridden by John Scanlon, that it was sought because it might provide evidence relating to his shooting, that no other unclaimed Banditos motorcycles were reported nearby, and that removing it would deprive police of the chance to examine it. The court was compelled to conclude that they foresaw with certainty that removing the bike might hinder the discovery of evidence and therefore intended to hinder that discovery. Section 315(3) did not apply because the allegation was an act of removing the motorcycle, not a mere failure to divulge information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Reasons for Decision
Outcome
Charges proved beyond reasonable doubt against both defendants.
Legal Topics
['hindering Investigation' 'discovery of Evidence Concerning a Serious Indictable Offence' 'mens Rea' 'right to Silence']
['criminal Law'] ['hindering Investigation' 'discovery of Evidence Concerning a Serious Indictable Offence' 'mens Rea' 'right to Silence']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Reasons for Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each defendant did an act intending in any way to hinder the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence committed by another person under s 315(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether the defendants were aware in a general way of the nature of the serious indictable offence to which the evidence might relate.' 'Whether s 315(3) applied because the allegation concerned refusal or failure to divulge information or produce evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants knew the police were looking for the Banditos motorcycle ridden by John Scanlon, that it was sought because it might provide evidence relating to his shooting, that no other unclaimed Banditos motorcycles were reported nearby, and that removing it would deprive police of the chance to examine it. The court was compelled to conclude that they foresaw with certainty that removing the bike might hinder the discovery of evidence and therefore intended to hinder that discovery. Section 315(3) did not apply because the allegation was an act of removing the motorcycle, not a mere failure to divulge information.

Court Disposition

Charges proved beyond reasonable doubt against both defendants.

Orders

  • []