Foster, Warren Stephen v The Queen

[1983] FCA 51

CATCHWORDS

Crlmanal Law - A p p e a l a g a m s t c o n v l c t i o n - Whether ordinance

v a l i d - Whether t r i a l J u d g e m i s d i r e c t e d j u r y - Whether grounds

of a p p e a l r a i s e d q u e s t l o n s of l a w .

Poisons and Narcotic Drugs Ordinance 1978, s . 4 ( 3 ) .

WARREN STEPHEN FOSTER V THE QUEEN

A.C .T . NO. G68 Of 1962

C0RAE.I: Bowen C . J . , McGregor and Lockhart JJ.

23 March, 1983

Canberra

I N THE	FEDERAL	COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
1 No. G68 of 1982

AUSTRALIAN	CAPITAL	TERRITORY	DISTRICT	) )
REGISTRY	) )

GENERAL D I V I S I O N )

BETWEEN:	WARREN STEPHEN	FOSTER
A p p e l l a n t

- AND : QUEEN THE

R e s p o n d e n t

ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: B o w e n C . J . , M c G r e g o r and Lockhart JJ.

WHERE	FADE :	C a n b e r r a
-	DATE :	23 March, 1983

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2 .	T h e m a t t e r be r e m i t t e d t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o r t h e
q u e s t i o n of sentence t o be d e a l t w l t h .

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRIILIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT ) KO. G68 of 1982

)

REGISTRY

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

BETWEEN: WARREN STEPHEN FOSTER

Appe l l an t

AND :

- THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: Bowen C . J . , McGregor and Lockhart JJ.

23 March, 1983.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

THE COURT: Warren S tephen Fos t e r appeals t o t h l s C o u r t a g a l n s t

h l s c o n v i c t i o n by t h e Supreme C o u r t o f the A u s t r a l l a n C a p i t a l

T e r r i t o r y a n d a ~ u r y on 1 September 1982 of t h e o f f e n c e of havlng

a c o n t r o l l e d subs tance , namely cannabls , i n h l s p o s s e s s i o n on 4

Janua ry 1980 fo r t he pu rpose of supply lng it t o a n o t h e r p e r s o n .

T h e o f f e n c e 1s c r e a t e d by s u b - s e c t l o n 4 ( 3 ) of t h e

P o i s o n s a n d N a r c o t i c D r u g s O r d l n a n c e 1 9 7 8 ( " t h e O r d l n a n c e " ) .

A f t e r r e c o r d i n g a c o n v i c t l o n o n t h e ~ u r y ' s v e r d l c t o f g u l l t y o n 1

September 1982, the l e a r n e d t r i a l J u d g e a d j o u r n e d t h e f u r t h e r

h e a r i n g of t h e m a t t e r t o 1 December 1982 a n d d e f e r r e d p a s s l n g

sen tence upon the a p p e l l a n t i n t h e m e a n t l m e . H ~ s Honocr o rde red

t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t be r e l e a s e d upon h l s own recognizance i n t h e

sum of $500 on c o n d i t l o n tha t he appear In co l i r t on 1 Gecember.

??le a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n o t l c e o f a p p e a l a g a i n s t h l s c o n v i c c l o n o n

22 September 1982 before sentence was passed .

2.

The matter has a rather lengthy curlal hlstory. Thls

was a retrial of the charge against the appellant. ht hls first trial, he was convlcted and the learned sentencing Judge ordered that he be released on hls own recognizance In the sum of $1,000

to be of good behavlour and on condition that he pay to the

' Commonwealth a penalty of $500 by fortnightly instalments of $10

each. The appellant appealed agalnst that convlctlon to this constltuted bench.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdlct and

remltted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The

judgment is reported in 38 A.L.R. 599. It is from hls conviction

at the second trial that the appellant appeals. The appellant

was unrepresented at both trlals, the first appeal and this

appeal.

The Crown case was baslcally that on 4 January 1980, a

policewoman and five det2ctlves of the drug squad vlsited the

appellant' S residence in Narrabundah, where they found cannabls

and cannabis seeds In a number of bags In dlfferent rooms of the

house and 132 plants growlng in the rear yard, some under

hot-hotise conditlons. The appe1lant.was said to be in possessLon

of about 20 kilograms, 20,058 grams, of cannabls.

There was little dlspute at the trial about the facts.

There was ample evldence that the appellant had. cannabis In hls

possession: indeed he did not dispute It. The prlnclpal

question In lssue was whether he had It In hls Fossesslon for the

3 .

p u r p o s e o f s u p p l y t o o t h e r p e r s o n s . The e v i d e n c e a g a l n s t the

a p p e l l a n t i n c l u d e d t h a t o f t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s who v i s i t e d h i s

house , found cannab l s t he re and had conve r sa t lons w i t h hlm both

a t t h e h o u s e a n d l a t e r a t t h e pollce s t a t i o n .

N o case h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e e v l d e n c e o f t h e

c o n v e r s a t l o n s was wrongly admitted, a n d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e

c o n v e r s a t i o n s w a s i n e s s e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c a n n a b i s i n

t h e p o s s e s s l o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t was f o r s u p p l y t o o t h e r p e r s o n s .

T u r n i n g t o t h e specific g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l r e l i e d o n b y

the a p p e l l a n t i n t h i s a p p e a l , o f w h i c h t h e r e a r e t w e l v e i n a l l ,

lt 1s c o n v e n l e n t t o c o n s i d e r f i r s t g r o u n d 4 , w h e r e t h e a p p e l l a n t

a l l e g e s t h a t the t r la l Judge erred i n law i n h o l a m g t h a t t h e

Ordinance was a l a w for t h e peace, oreer and good government of

the T e r r i t o r y , p u r s u a n t t o t h e Seat o f Government Administratlon

- A c t 1910.

The ord lnance concerns po isons and narcot ic d rugs ,

i n c l u d i n g t h e i r u s e , p o s s e s s i o n a n d s u p p l y . P l a l n l y t h i s i s a

l a w f o r t h e p e a c e , order and good government of the Terr l tory,

p u r s u a n t s u b - s e c t i o n t o 12(1) t h e o f S e a t of Government

Admln i s t r a t ion A c t 1910.

Grounds 7 and 8 may be c o n v e n l e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r .

Ground	7	r e a d s t h a t : -
"The T r i a l J u d g e e r r e d i n l a w l n directing t h e ~ u r y I n
r e s p e c t o f t h e i r d u t y t o c o n v i c t " .

4.

Ground 8 :-

“The T r i a l Judge e r r e d i n l a w I n d i r e c t l n g t h e ] u r y t h a t

the vlews of the accused were wrong“.

Ther’e w e r e e s s e n t i a l l y t w o s u b m i s s i o n s made b y t he

a p p e l l a n t f a l l l n g w i t h i n t h e b r o a d a m b l t o f t h e s e g r o u n d s ,

namely, f i r s t t h a t h i s Honour d l r e c t e d t h e j u r y t h a t i f t h e y w e r e

s a t i s f i e d b e y o n d r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was g u i l t y ,

t h e n t h e y s h o u l d c o n v l c t h i m . Thls d l r e c t l o n h a s n o t b e e n shown

t o be I n e r r o r .

Second, It was submi t ted by the a p p e l l a n t tha t a

d l r e c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l J u d g e t o t h e ] u r y i n these t e rms was

erroneous, namely: -

“ T h e a c c u s e d h a s had a l o t t o s a y t o y o u a b o u t h l s

response or how you shou ld v l ew any d l r ec t lons o f t ha t

n a t u r e tha t I make t o you and he h a s t r i e d t o p e r s u a d e

you t h a t you a re no t bound t o c o n v l c t , t h a t you can

r e t u r n a n y v e r d i c t , i f you t h i n k t h a t t h e l a w 1s u n - ~ u s t

o r immoral, t h a t t h l s i s v i c t l m l e s s c r m e w l t h which he

has been charged, and h e d o e s n o t f e e l l i k e a c r l m i n a l .

He h a s n o t d o n e a n y t h i n g e v l l or h a r m f u l t o o t h e r

peop le , he has go t no g u l l t y s t a t e o f mind and t h e r e f o r e

he i s n o t a c r i m i n a l a n d t h e r e f o r e you cannot convict

him; w e l l , l a d i e s and gent lemen, tha t 1 s a comple te ly

wrong approach.

The l e g l s l a t u r e has made t h i s a n o f f e n c e . I t may be

t h a t t h e r e a r e a l l sor t s of movements t o h a v e t h e

p o l i t i c i a n s c h a n g e t h e l a w i n the o r d l n a r y - l e g i s l a t u r e

o f t h e t e r r i t o r y a n d I n a c c o r d a n c e w l t h t h e o r d l n a r y

l e g i s l a t l v e p r o c e s s e s ” .

That 1 s taken from page 260 o f t he appea l book .

P l a l n l y hls Honour w a s n o t i n e r r o r I n th l s d i r e c t i o n .

Ground 9 of t h e ground-s o f a p p e a l 1 s t h a t : -

5 .

"The T r i a l Judge erred i n l a w I n d i r e c t i n g t h e j u r y t o

d i s r e g a r d a u t h o r i t i v e [ s i c j opln lon on matters of law".

I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t c i t e d t o h i s Honour a

passage from a work by K a r l Ol lver Kroner , Law a s F a c t . I t does

not appear t o the Court f rom a r ead ing o f h l s Honour ' S c h a r g e t o

the ~ u r y t h a t h l s Honour r e f e r r e d t o t h i s work a t a l l , and nor of

cour se w a s he r e q u i r e d t o do so. It 1 s f o r t h e J u d g e t o I n s t r u c t

t h e ~ u r y o n m a t t e r s of l a w . h i a t he says abou t t he l aw and what

a u t h o r l t i e s , i f any , he c i t e s a r e m a t t e r s f o r h l m , p r o v i d e d t h a t

h e does n o t s t r a y i n t o i m p e r m i s s i b l e f i e l d s . H l s Honour d l d n o t

e r r I n th i s r e s p e c t .

Ground 11 which is re l ied o n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t h a t : -

"The T r i a l J u d g e e r r e d I n l a w I n f a l l l n g t o recognize

t h e O r d i n a n c e r e p u g n a n t t o t h e f r e e p r a c t i c e of r e l l g i o n

gua ran teed C o n s t i t u t i o n " . A u s t r a l i a n b y

The a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d t h a t s u c h g u a r a n t e e s o f

r e l i g i o u s f r e e d o m a s a r e a f f o r d e d b y t h e C o n s t l t u t i o n - s e e s.116

- e x t e n d t o f r e e d o m o f e x p r e s s l o n a n d p r a c t l c e o f m o r a l s , e t h i c s

o r p h l l o s o p h l e s . The bel lef t h a t c a n n a b l s 1 s a harmless

subs tance to smoke , consume, possess o r supply 1 s n o t a r e l i g i o u s

bel lef f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f s.116: t h e r e 1 s no s u b s t a n c e I n t h i s

submlssion.

The a p p e l l a n t c o n d u c t e d h l s own a p p e a l b e f o r e u s . We

h a v e e x a m l n e d t h e a p p e a l b o o k c l o s e l y t o s e e i f t h e r e 1 s a n y

subs t ance ln any of the g rounds o f ap l ;ea l , b u t we f ind none . The

t r i a l w a s c o n d u c t e d f a l r l y : i n d e e a , t h e t r i a l J u d g e was c a r e f u l

t o s a f e g u a r d t h e I n t e r e s t s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t who conducted. hls o m

de fence . We s e e n o t h i n g t o s u g g e s t t h a t the t r l a l rn l sca r r l ed .

6 .

T h e r e a l a t t a c k made b y t h e a p p e l l a n t a g a l n s t h l s

c o n v i c t l o n is expressed g rounds In of appeal numbered

1,2,3,5,6,10 a n d 1 2 , whlch w e n e e d n o t s e t o u t i n terms. I n

subs t ance , the a p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t the l a w p r o h l b i t i n g t h e

p o s s e s s l o n of c a n n a b i s f o r t h e pu rpose o f supp ly i s o u t d a t e d ,

wrong and based on erroneous assumptions, namely t h a t cannab i s 1 s

h a r m f u l t o human b e l n g s a n d i n l m l c a l t o s o c l a l o r d e r .

D i f f e r e n t v i e w s , o f course, a r e h e l d m our community on

the q u e s t l o n o f the dange r s , i f any , o f cannabis and whether i t s

posses s ion shou ld be l e g a l i z e d , b u t t h e s e are e s s e n t i a l l y m a t t e r s

f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o c o n s i d e r . The arguments of t h e a p p e l l a n t

r a i s e no q u e s t l o n of law.

A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e C o u r t w o u l d d i s m i s s t h e appeal and

remi t t h e m a t t e r t o t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o r t h e q u e s t l o n o f

s e n t e n c e t o be d e a l t with. I cerc;? :; L: ,; ;. ,; ( s > r e c e ~ . , , n v

p a p 31-e 2. :,-L L _ _ .',: r..353-,j far

ju lgnenr: h-: cJ:~:

4 ' I &

Assoclate

Dated 4 ' ~ ,,it+L I, / f 7 ~ ~