Judge rules out evidence found after finding police search illegal

The trial for a man accused of a serious drug offence has been tossed out of court after judge ruled a key piece of evidence was illegally obtained by police

A drug trial has been dismissed after a judge found key evidence was illegally obtained

The trial of a man accused of serious drug offences has been thrown out of court after a judge ruled that evidence gathered by police during his arrest was illegal.

Robert Bruce Cramp was due to face a judge-only trial in Grafton District Court this week after pleading not guilty to supplying a prohibited drug between an indictable and commercial quantity, possessing a prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

An objection was raised during a pre-trial motion by Mr Cramps’ defence team, challenging the validity of police evidence gathered, and that a search of Mr Cramp’s vehicle that uncovered the drugs he was alleged to be dealing was done without a warrant and without reasonable grounds.

The court was told that on November 19, 2019, officers from Coffs/Clarence Police District arrested the 38-year-old and a female he was with at the Grafton Hotel after an arrest warrant was issued on November 5 after he was allegedly involved in a police pursuit.

During the arrest, the court was told a Detective was given a set of keys that had been taken from Mr Cramp’s possession, and the officer located a white Mitsubishi hire car and opened it, where 41.46g of methylamphetamine were found in a black sunglasses case.

Tendered as evidence were the two statements of the two detectives involved in the case, and on Tuesday Mr Cramp’s lawyer Imogen Hogan cross-examined the detectives where it was revealed the Department of Public Prosecutions had alerted the arresting and charging officer that the validity of the search was being questioned by the defence, and a separate, second statement was produced by both officers some months after the initial arrest.

During the grilling it was also revealed that the two officers had not taken any notes of an alleged conversation that had taken place with the female that Mr Cramp was with, where it was alleged she admitted she was at the hotel for the purpose of buying ice from Mr Cramp.

Ms Hogan submitted that the officers took a narrow view of their powers to “stop, search and detain” a vehicle during the arrest, and that the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act did not extend to a search of an unattended car without a warrant when the keys to the vehicle were in police possession. Ms Hogan also objected to the evidence making it to trial on the grounds that officers didn’t have reasonable grounds for suspicion to search the vehicle, as there was not enough detail in either officer’s statement to justify their suspicions that Mr Cramp was involved in drug supply at the time.

The Crown Prosecutor submitted the search was lawful, and that the reason there was no mention of the female looking to buy ice from Mr Cramp because she had been charged with a marijuana possession charge. The prosecutor also argued there was justification within the LEPRA regulations that the search conducted by the officer without a warrant was legal, and that under Section 21 of the act there was nothing that precluded police from searching a person or “thing in their control” if under arrest for a separate offence.

The prosecution submitted that police had a reasonable grounds for suspicion as Mr Cramp was previously known to be involved in drug supply, and the fact that he had a hire car was a known tactic by drug dealers to try and avoid detection. The prosecutor also argued that both officers gave evidence in court that they had a conversation with the female who said she was at the hotel to buy ice.

Judge Jonathon Priestley on Wednesday told the court there was no evidence that police told the accused the reason they were exercising their power of searching the vehicle without a warrant, and that the amount of information that was required to obtain one spoke to the “significance” of police requiring one to conduct a search.

Judge Priestley said there was an expectation that a warrant would be required unless evidence was at risk of being destroyed, of the reasonable suspicion of the officers impeded, but he found that was not the case with Mr Cramp as at the time of his arrest the car was parked and unattended outside the hotel with the keys in police possession.

The judge also was unconvinced the prosecution had proven the two officers had a reasonable grounds for suspecting Mr Cramp was involved in drug supply, as there was no factual basis for the suspicion or why they thought it was appropriate to proceed with the search of the vehicle without a warrant.

In his remarks Judge Priestley said the “overall impression” of the two officers giving evidence was “favourable” of their integrity but they were “unpersuasive” in their argument in justifying their decision to search the vehicle, given that there was no notes of the discussion with the female that Mr Cramp was at the hotel to supply drugs to her, a major factor in their grounds for reasonable suspicion.

The judge also noted the fact sheet in relation to the female’s charges go beyond the possession of marijuana, including references to an ice pipe and that she had smoked ice earlier in the day, which raised questions as to why it was not included that she was at the hotel to buy ice.

“I’m not at all satisfied the conversation with the female occurred but I’m not of the belief as suggested by the defence that it was a recent invention,” the judge said.

Judge Priestly concluded in striking the search out that there was not enough evidence to support the view that the officers had reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that the evidence obtained was in contravention of Australian law, describing the breach of LEPRA as “reckless”.

“There was clearly a lack of awareness in the circumstances for requiring a warrant. the need to obtain a warrant should have been apparent,” the judge said.

With the search tossed out of court the Crown withdrew the charges and the matter was dismissed.

Mr Cramp will next appear before Coffs Harbour District Court on Tuesday March 16 to face charges over the alleged police pursuit.

Originally published as Judge rules out evidence found after finding police search illegal