Court of Appeal

Share this

R v Douglas [2014] QCA 104 (12/0320) Muir and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J 09/05/2014

Full-text: QCA14-104.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug reasonably suspected of having been imported contrary to s 307.8(1) and s 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where the appellant contended that a sentence had been included in the tendered admissions document by mistake – where the inclusion of the sentence was not agreed upon by the parties – whether the sentence was admissible – whether placing inadmissible evidence before the jury was prejudicial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant checked into two different motels under fake names – where parcels were delivered to the motels – where powder partly composed of MDMA was found inside one of the parcels – where a man posing as a police officer came to the motel seeking to question the motel owner about the appellant – where inquiries revealed that no police officer had attended the motel – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the evidence of someone else being involved was simply someone coming and asking for the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant argued that the primary judge erred in not directing the jury that the Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to possess a substance and that the appellant knew or believed that the substance was a border controlled drug – where the appellant contended that he attempted to possess the parcel but not with knowledge that it contained MDMA – whether the trial judge erred in his directions on the fault elements of the offence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the associate to the trial judge failed to say “so says your speaker, so say you all” when delivering the verdict – whether the trial judge erred in failing to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the verdict of the jury was unanimous

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was sentenced to nine and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years – where the appellant pleaded not guilty – whether in regards to all relevant circumstances the sentence was manifestly excessive