Alhassan v R - [2017] NSWCCA 73

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Alhassan v R [2017] NSWCCA 73
Hearing dates: 3 April 2017
Decision date: 20 April 2017
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
RA Hulme J at [28];
Beech-Jones J at [29].
Decision:
1. Extend the time within which to apply for leave to appeal to 14 November 2016.
2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Appeal allowed.
4. Set aside the guilty verdict on count 1, and set aside the sentence imposed on 31 March 2016.
5. In lieu thereof, substitute a verdict of guilty of an offence under s 25(1) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW), and remit the proceedings to the District Court for the imposition of sentence.
6. The proceedings be listed for mention in the District Court, at Parramatta, on Thursday 27 April 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - supply of commercial quantity of prohibited drug - applicant charged with supply of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and with supply of cocaine - both drugs found in vehicle owned and driven by applicant - jury convicted on first count and acquitted on second count - whether verdicts inconsistent - whether conviction on first count unreasonable - whether prosecution had shown to criminal standard that applicant knew or believed that the transaction involved a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug - appeal allowed and different verdict substituted
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6, 7
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 32, 33, 44
Cases Cited: Allan v R [2017] NSWCCA 6
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 78
R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016)90 ALJR 1013
Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603; [2000] HCA 43
Yousef Jidah v R [2014] NSWCCA 270
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hudu Abdulai Alhassan (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lange (Applicant)
M Cinque SC (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
O Juweinat (Applicant)
C Hyland (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/00105672
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

31 March 2016

Before:

Colefax DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/00105672

Judgment

LEEMING JA: The applicant, Hudu Abdulai Alhassan, seeks leave to appeal from his conviction on one count of supplying a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely, 1980.7 grams of methylamphetamine. He was tried in the District Court before a judge and jury of 12 on an indictment that also included a count of supplying 184.2 grams of cocaine. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the latter count.
The single ground of appeal is that the guilty verdict on the first count was unreasonable within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). That ground had two aspects:

that the evidence did not support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that he knew or believed that there was a large commercial quantity of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alhassan v R

Details

AGLC: Alhassan v R [2017] NSWCCA 73
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 73
Decision Date: 20 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Alhassan, was charged with supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and cocaine. The drugs were found in a vehicle he owned and drove. The jury convicted him on the first count and acquitted him on the second count. Alhassan appealed his conviction, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent and that the prosecution failed to prove he knew or believed the transaction involved a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug.

The court considered whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving Alhassan knew or believed the transaction involved a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The court examined the evidence and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish Alhassan's knowledge or belief regarding the quantity of the drug. The court held that the prosecution had not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, making the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction on the first count was quashed. The court substituted a verdict of acquittal on that count. The court found that the verdicts were not inconsistent and that the prosecution had not proven the offence to the required standard. The decision highlights the importance of proving knowledge or belief regarding the quantity of drugs in such cases.

Orders