Legal Research
Cases
Calabria v The Queen

Calabria v The Queen

Case [1983] HCA 33 11 October 1983

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ.

CALABRIA v. THE QUEEN

(1983) 151 CLR 670

11 October 1983

Criminal Law

Criminal Law—Drugs—Trading—Operations directly or indirectly concerned with buying or selling of drug—Involvement in preparation of drug—Whether trading—Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934 (S.A.),ss. 3, 5(2). Criminal Law—Procedure—Appeal—Power to substitute verdict—Conviction for trading in drugs—No evidence to support conviction—Evidence to support conviction for preparation of drugs—Whether power to substitute verdict—Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (S.A.), s. 354(2).

Decision

October 11.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment: -
The applicant was tried by jury and convicted on a charge of trading in Indian hemp, contrary to s. 5(2)(c) of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934 (S.A.), as amended, ("the Act"). His appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia was dismissed and he now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court on a number of grounds. (at p672)

2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant for present purposes, may be quite shortly stated. On 13 March 1981, the day of the alleged offence, at about 5.00 p.m., detectives went to a farm at Uraidla owned by a Mr. and Mrs. Trimboli, and entered a large shed in which over 1,000 Indian hemp plants were drying, some hanging from rafters and others strewn over a number of bed frames. The shed contained a lighted kerosene heater and also a set of scales. A man who was claimed by the prosecution to be the applicant, and who was identified as such by evidence which the jury was entitled to accept, was in the shed; he immediately fled from it, and was pursued by the police, but escaped. The applicant, when later apprehended at about 10.00 o'clock that evening, denied that he had been in the shed. He persisted in his denials in a statement from the dock which he made at the trial. When he was apprehended numerous fragments of hemp were found in his shoes and socks and on his clothing, including his underclothing. (at p672)

3. Before this Court, counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conclusion reached by the Court of Criminal Appeal (King C.J., White and Matheson JJ.) that the evidence was sufficient to entitle the jury to infer (to use the words of White J.) "that the applicant was involved in a significant and active way in the handling of dry hemp leaf in the shed on that day, whether by stripping, hanging, shifting, turning or otherwise being involved in drying it". There is no evidence to show where the hemp in the shed had been grown. but it does appear that it was not cultivated either on the Trimbolis' farm at Uraidla or on the applicant's own property at a place called One Tree Hill. The question for our decision is whether in these circumstances the applicant was trading in the hemp. (at p673)

4. Section 5(2) of the Act…

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 Calabria v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Calabria v The Queen [1983] HCA 33
Case: [1983] HCA 33
Decision Date: 11 October 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Calabria against his conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from the appellant and the proper application of the law relating to self-defence in the context of a murder charge.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant, specifically a statement made by him and a knife found at his residence. Furthermore, the Court had to consider whether the jury directions on the issue of self-defence were adequate and correctly reflected the relevant legal principles, particularly concerning the appellant's belief as to the necessity of using force.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing the admissibility of evidence obtained in circumstances where an accused person may have been unlawfully detained or improperly influenced. It also examined the onus of proof in relation to self-defence and the standard of proof required for the prosecution to disprove a claim of self-defence once raised. The judges applied established common law principles concerning the voluntariness of statements and the exclusionary rules relating to improperly obtained evidence, as well as the statutory framework governing the defence of self-defence.

The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court finding no error in the trial judge's rulings or directions that would warrant setting aside the conviction.

Orders