Legal Research
Cases
Falzon v The Queen

Falzon v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 294 12 December 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0283

SUSAN FALZON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, PRIEST and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 294
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VCC 1997 (Judge Quin)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Trafficking in commercial quantity – Trafficking in drug of dependence – Whether verdicts unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to evidence – Circumstantial Crown case – Whether sufficient evidence to prove applicant party to joint criminal enterprise – Evidence insufficient – Not open to jury to convict – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Convictions on both charges set aside and substituted with verdicts of acquittal – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 276(1)(a), Crimes Act 1958 s 323(1)(c).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P J Smallwood with Ms F Fox	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Respondent	Mr J C J McWilliams	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of T Forrest JA. I agree with the orders which his Honour proposes, for the reasons which he gives.

PRIEST JA:

I agree with T Forrest JA.

T FORREST JA:

The applicant was convicted in the County Court of one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis contrary to s 71AA of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substance Act 1981 (‘the Act’), and one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence contrary to s 71AC of the Act.

On 21 November 2018, she was sentenced as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1
Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (cannabis)

(Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AA)

25 years’

imprisonment

4 years’

Community Correction Order (‘CCO’)
N/A

3
Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis)

(Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AC)
15 years’ imprisonment 4 years’ CCO N/A

Total effective sentence: 4 years’ CCO with a special condition of 150 hours of unpaid community work

Non-parole period: N/A

Pre-sentence detention: N/A

Section 6AAA statement: N/A

Other relevant orders: Disposal order and forensic sample order

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (cannabis) (Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AA)	25 years’ imprisonment	4 years’ Community Correction Order (‘CCO’)	N/A
3	Trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis) (Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AC)	15 years’ imprisonment	4 years’ CCO	N/A
Total effective sentence:	4 years’ CCO with a special condition of 150 hours of unpaid community work
Non-parole period:	N/A
Pre-sentence detention:	N/A
Section 6AAA statement:	N/A
Other relevant orders:	Disposal order and forensic sample order

The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against conviction containing the following ground:

Ground 1:The verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.

Legal principles

Section 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009

Section 276(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’) obliges this Court to allow an appeal against conviction if it considers that the jury’s verdict is ‘unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.’

An intermediate appellate court must undertake its own independent evaluation of the evidence to decide whether a jury must, as opposed to might, have entertained a doubt about the applicant’s guilt.[1] Setting aside a verdict is a serious step; one not to be…

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 Falzon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Susan Falzon v The Queen [2019] VSCA 294
Case: [2019] VSCA 294
Decision Date: 12 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Falzon v The Queen, the appellant, Falzon, appealed against his convictions for trafficking in commercial quantity and trafficking in a drug of dependence, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented. Specifically, the Court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence to prove that Falzon was a party to a joint criminal enterprise and involved in the trafficking activities. The Court needed to assess whether the circumstantial Crown case was strong enough to support the verdicts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court found that the evidence presented was not sufficient to support the verdicts. The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, and the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Falzon was part of the joint criminal enterprise. The Court held that it was not open to the jury to convict Falzon based on the evidence presented. As a result, the Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions on both charges and substituting them with verdicts of acquittal. The Court's decision was based on the statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the Crimes Act 1958, which require that a conviction can only be based on evidence that is sufficient to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court's decision in Falzon v The Queen highlights the importance of the standard of proof in criminal cases and the necessity for the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to support a conviction. The Court's ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof required to secure a conviction. The final orders of the Court were to set aside Falzon's convictions and substitute them with verdicts of acquittal on both charges. This decision has significant implications for criminal law in Australia, particularly in cases involving trafficking in commercial quantity and trafficking in drugs of dependence.

Orders