Legal Research
Cases
Harvey v Bofilios

Harvey v Bofilios

Case [2017] NTSC 68 28 August 2017

Criminal Liability

Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:Harvey v Bofilios [2017] NTSC 68
PARTIES:HARVEY, Alicia Brooke
v

BOFILIOS, John

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 8 of 2016 (21456835)
DELIVERED ON:  28 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Darwin
HEARING DATE:  23 March 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS
Whether court erred in finding no case to answer on basis that appellant had failed to adduce any evidence that a dangerous drug was supplied as alleged in each of the charges – extended definition of “supply” – right of appeal against judgment of acquittal – errors of law and mixed fact and law – trial judge’s ruling predicated on misapprehension of definition of “supply” – no contrary submission by prosecution – appeal dismissed.
Criminal Code Act (NT) s 414
Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act (NT) s 163, s 177
Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) s 3
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vis (2000) 77 SASR 490, Bridle v Verity (2011) 30 NTLR 180, Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21, Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, Gazepis v Police(1997) 70 SASR 121, Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317, Holder v Lewis (2003) 231 LSJS 431, Johnson v Miller (1937) 59 CLR 467, Knight v Birch (1992) 106 ACTR 27, Peach v Bird (2006) 159 A Crim R 416, Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610, Police v Dorizzi (2002) 84 SASR 416, R v Addison (1993) 70 A Crim R 213, R v Dendic (1987) 34 A Crim R 40, R v Longshaw (1990) 20 NSWLR 554, R v Peirce (1996) 2 VR 215, R v Saffron (1988) 17 NSWLR 395, R v Swan (2003) 140 A Crim R 243, R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545, R v Wilson (2011) 30 NTLR 51, SA Police v Murphy (unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Debelle J, 9 January 1996), Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300, referred to.
CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG OFFENCES – EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF, PRESUMPTIONS, AND WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE – WITNESSES
Whether court erred in finding only evidence respondent had supplied dangerous drugs came from the testimony of prosecution witness – existence of objective and contemporaneous evidence in corroboration – whether court will set aside decision based on the assessment of credibility – no error of law established – appeal dismissed.
Berlyn v Brouskos (2002) 134 A Crim R 111, May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654, R v Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45, State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions (1999) 73 ALJR 306, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:DJ Morters
Respondent: T Berkley
Solicitors:
Appellant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Darwin…

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 Harvey v Bofilios

Details

AGLC: Harvey v Bofilios [2017] NTSC 68
Case: [2017] NTSC 68
Decision Date: 28 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Harvey v Bofilios involved the defendant, Bofilios, who was charged with drug-related offences. The matter came before the court to determine the admissibility of certain evidence that was sought to be excluded by the defendant. The court had to consider the legal issues pertaining to the admissibility of the evidence in relation to the drug charges against the defendant. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the evidence obtained from the defendant's interaction with a witness was admissible, and whether the reliability and probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant.

The court examined the nature of the evidence, the manner in which it was obtained, and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The key issue was whether the evidence was obtained in a manner that violated the defendant's rights, and if it was reliable and relevant to the charges. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court also considered the relevance of the evidence to the charges and whether it could assist in proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the evidence was admissible. The court determined that the evidence was obtained lawfully and was both relevant and reliable. The probative value of the evidence was deemed to outweigh any prejudicial effect, and the court held that it was in the interests of justice for the evidence to be admitted. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the prosecution, and the evidence was admitted as part of the case against the defendant. The case proceeded to the jury, who ultimately found the defendant guilty of the drug offences.

Orders