Police are reviewing their handling of an armed robbery investigation after revelations of an illegal property search caused an ACT Supreme Court trial to collapse earlier this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But police say the review is standard procedure for such cases, and would not be drawn on whether the error has prompted an internal professional standards investigation.
A 10-minute unlawful search of a carport in late 2014 caused an armed robbery trial involving Orry Kuzma, 21, to collapse earlier this month.
Police had been investigating a home invasion on December 13, 2014, in which a group of four men entered a Ngunnawal home with baseball bats and a dog, demanding money for a debt.
Instead of cash, they took the man's television and left. The victim told police he suspected his neighbour may have been involved somehow.
Police went to the neighbour's home, walked through a side gate and knocked on his door.
No one answered, and the constable began looking through his carport, without applying for a warrant, despite it only being about an hour away through a call to a magistrate.
Police found the stolen television, and a sergeant then told the constable that they shouldn't be in the carport.
The pair retreated, and got a third officer to apply for a warrant over the phone, without telling her that they had found the television in an illegal search.
The television had Kuzma's fingerprints on it, and it would prove to be the only real piece of evidence linking him to the crime.
The details of the search were only revealed during Kuzma's trial in the ACT Supreme Court last week, when his lawyer Michael Kukulies-Smith cross-examined police.
Once the impropriety was revealed, Acting Justice Stephen Walmsley was left with no choice but to disallow the television, and by extension the fingerprints, from being put into evidence.
Prosecutors were then forced to drop the case.
Justice Walmsley described the search as "reckless", unnecessary, and a "significant impropriety", and was particularly critical of the searching constable's demeanour when she gave evidence in the ACT Supreme Court.
Late last week, ACT Policing confirmed it was reviewing the outcome of the case.
A spokesman said reviews were standard in such court cases.
He would not confirm whether an internal investigation, conducted by Professional Standards, was occurring.
"[Professional Standards] do not comment on internal investigations," he said.
During cross-examination, the constable who found the television conceded she had committed an offence of trespass.
Justice Walmsley said the impropriety was too significant to allow the admitting of the television as evidence.
"Some might regard the incident as trivial, after all the police did find the stolen television, but it is especially important when dealing with police powers that the end should not justify the means," he said.
"Police must understand their obligations to comply with the law and be frank about it when applying for warrants."
