Davis v Regina - [2010] NSWCCA 258

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Davis v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 258

HEARING DATE(S): 14/10/10

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Kirby J at 2; Hoeben J at 62

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - supply of prohibited drug ss 25(1) and 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 - appeal against conviction - whether judge's comment suggested accused obliged to give evidence - possessin of drug the only issue - whether direction on inferences adequate - whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Robinson v The Queen [1991] HCA 38; (1991) 180 CLR 531
The Queen v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487

PARTIES: Craig Campbell Davis (App)
Regina (Resp/Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/10281

COUNSEL: T Gartelmann (App)
J A Girdham (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher (App)
S Kavanagh (Resp/Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 25/2/10

2009/10281

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
KIRBY J
HOEBEN J
Thursday 9 December 2010

Craig Campbell DAVIS v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Kirby J.

2 KIRBY J: On 9 November 2009, Craig Campbell Davis (the appellant) was arraigned before Blackmore DCJ and a jury upon a charge that, on 26 February 2009, he supplied a prohibited drug, namely, 3, 4 ethylenedioxy methyl amphetamine, contrary to ss 25(1) and 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“the Act”). Mr Davis pleaded not guilty. After a short trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty at 10.09 am on 11 November 2009.

3 On 25 February 2010, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment with a non parole period of 1 year and 1 month (11.11.09 to 10.12.10) and an additional term of 1 year 2 months to expire on 10.2.12 (taking account of a matter on a Form 1). The matter on the Form 1 was a small quantity of cannabis found in his home unit at the time of a search that I will shortly describe.

4 Mr Davis appeals against his conviction. There is no appeal against sentence. Before going to the Notice of Appeal, I should briefly describe the evidence at trial.

The Crown case.

5 It was an unusual Crown case. Evidence was led, without objection, that on 24 February 2007 at Currumbin on the Gold Coast, Queensland, the police were called to a holiday home unit. Shortly after their arrival, two men came to the unit, having been on the beach. One was Mr Davis and the other his friend, Mr Terrence Day.

6 The police then conducted a search of the unit. There were two bedrooms. Mr Davis occupied the main bedroom, as he acknowledged. Mr Day was in the smaller bedroom. Within the main bedroom there was a walk-in wardrobe, where the police located…

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 Davis v Regina

Details

AGLC: Davis v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 258
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 258
Decision Date: 9 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Davis against Regina, the appellant was convicted in the County Court of Victoria for the possession of a prohibited drug, in contravention of sections 25(1) and 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that a comment made by the trial judge implied that he was obligated to give evidence. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the sole issue in the case was his possession of the drug, and that the trial judge's direction on inferences was inadequate. Lastly, the appellant claimed that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.

The central legal issues for the court to decide were whether the judge's comment suggested an obligation on the appellant to provide evidence, whether the trial judge's direction on inferences was adequate, and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The court examined the judge's comments, the direction on inferences, and the sufficiency of the evidence to determine if the verdict was justifiable.

The court found that the judge's comment did not imply an obligation for the appellant to give evidence. It was held that the judge's comments were made in the context of the general principles of the law and did not suggest that the appellant was required to testify. Regarding the direction on inferences, the court found that the trial judge's direction was adequate as it covered the necessary points of law and allowed the jury to consider the evidence properly. Finally, the court held that the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, as there was sufficient evidence to establish the appellant's possession of the prohibited drug beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments and maintained the original decision of the County Court of Victoria.

Orders