EVANS -v- R [1999] WASCA 252
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [1999] WASCA 252 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 12/11/1999 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:91/1999 | 17 AUGUST 1999 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J WHITE J | 17/08/99 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MOHAMED IGSAAN EVANS THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Appeal and new trial Appeal against conviction Whether evidence of cash and note in accused's car admissible to support charge of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply Relevant to rebut innocent explanation Appeal dismissed Criminal law Directions to jury Onus of proof regarding circumstantial evidence Directions read as a whole reveal no misdirection or inadequacy Criminal law Appeal and new trial Sentencing Fresh evidence sought to be led of rehabilitation demonstrated by business success Not exceptional circumstances Sentence not excessive Application for leave to appeal dismissed |
Legislation: | Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 11(a) |
Case References: | A Child v Andrews (1995) 12 WAR 552 Anderson (1997) 92 A Crim R 348 Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521 Darwell v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970220; 15 May 1997 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2; (1999) 73 ALJR 281 Krakouer v The Queen [1998] HCA 43; (1998) 73 ALJR 1229 Markovina v R (1996) 16 WAR 354 McGhee (1993) 68 A Crim R 220 Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234 R v GP (1997) 18 WAR 196 R v Liddington (1997) 18 WAR 394 R v Lobell [1957] 1 All ER 734 R v Periera [1986] 1 Qd R 211 R v Rostom [1966] 2 VR 82 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Sultana (1982) 74 A Crim R 27 Sultana (1992) 74 A Crim R 27 Vasich (1998) 99 A Crim R 262 R v Sobolewski, unreported; CCA NSW File No 60502/97; 17 June 1998 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : EVANS -v- R [1999] WASCA 252 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- ANDERSON J
WHITE J
- CCA 92 of 1999
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against conviction - Whether evidence of cash and note in accused's car admissible to support charge of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply - Relevant to rebut innocent explanation - Appeal dismissed
Criminal law - Directions to jury - Onus of proof regarding circumstantial evidence - Directions read as a whole reveal no misdirection or inadequacy
Criminal law - Appeal and new trial - Sentencing - Fresh…
Continue reading Evans v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Evans v The Queen [1999] WASCA 252
- Case
- [1999] WASCA 252
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Evans was convicted of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply and subsequently appealed against his conviction. The appeal against the conviction and an application for leave to appeal against his sentence were dismissed by the court. The key issues in the appeal were the admissibility of certain evidence, the adequacy of the jury directions, and the sentencing.
The court first examined whether evidence of cash and a note found in the accused's car was admissible to support the charge of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply. The defence argued that the evidence was not relevant to rebut an innocent explanation for possession of the drugs. The court held that the evidence was relevant as it could support an inference of intent to sell or supply, and therefore, it was properly admitted.
Regarding the jury directions, the appellant contended that the trial judge's directions on the onus of proof concerning circumstantial evidence were inadequate or misdirected the jury. However, the court found that when the directions were read as a whole, there was no misdirection or inadequacy in the directions given to the jury.
Lastly, the appellant sought to lead fresh evidence of his rehabilitation demonstrated by his business success in an attempt to argue that his sentence was excessive. The court found that the evidence did not meet the exceptional circumstances required for such an application, and the sentence was not excessive. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence were dismissed.
The court first examined whether evidence of cash and a note found in the accused's car was admissible to support the charge of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply. The defence argued that the evidence was not relevant to rebut an innocent explanation for possession of the drugs. The court held that the evidence was relevant as it could support an inference of intent to sell or supply, and therefore, it was properly admitted.
Regarding the jury directions, the appellant contended that the trial judge's directions on the onus of proof concerning circumstantial evidence were inadequate or misdirected the jury. However, the court found that when the directions were read as a whole, there was no misdirection or inadequacy in the directions given to the jury.
Lastly, the appellant sought to lead fresh evidence of his rehabilitation demonstrated by his business success in an attempt to argue that his sentence was excessive. The court found that the evidence did not meet the exceptional circumstances required for such an application, and the sentence was not excessive. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.