Hugo Jacobs v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 332

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hugo JACOBS v R [2013] NSWCCA 332
Hearing dates: 20 August 2013
Decision date: 20 December 2013
Before: Hidden J at [1]
Latham J at [60]
Adamson J at [61]
Decision:
Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, new trial ordered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - supply of commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - fresh evidence as to credibility of a witness - whether identification evidence intentionally influenced - expert evidence
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Grey v The Queen [2001] HCA 65, 75 ALJR 1708
R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356, 149 A Crim R 417
Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204
R v David and Gugea (CCA, Unreported, 10 October 1995)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hugo Jacobs (appellant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Turnbull SC (appellant
N Noman SC (respondent)
Solicitors:
Bilias & Associates (appellant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/63899
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

12 May 2011

Before:

Sweeney DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/63899

Judgment

HIDDEN J: At trial in the District Court the appellant, Hugo Jacobs, was found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. He appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.
Put shortly, it was the Crown case that the appellant was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with one Bassam Darwiche to supply 413.1 grams of methylamphetamine to two men from Melbourne, Sammy Quariaqus and Martin Mansour, at a motel at Casula on 19 June 2008. The evidence against the appellant was circumstantial. Police had been intercepting calls on a phone being used by Mr Darwiche, who was under investigation. It was alleged that the appellant was a party to some of those calls, and that during them the two men used code words referring to drugs.
Mr Darwiche lived in Wellington Road, Sefton. The home was subject to video surveillance by police. In the afternoon of 19 June 2008 a green Holden Maloo utility was seen to stop near that home, and the driver alighted from it. It was the Crown case that this was the appellant. Later that afternoon, under police observation, that man and Mr Darwiche travelled in the Maloo to the motel at Casula. They were seen to enter the motel and leave it shortly afterwards. It was alleged that the drug was supplied in a room at the motel registered in the name of Mr Quariaqus.
Mr Quariaqus and Mr Mansour were kept under police surveillance as they subsequently left the motel in a yellow Ford. Later that evening, police stopped that vehicle in the Goulburn area. 413.1 grams of methylamphetamine was found wrapped inside bags in the vehicle. A search of the motel room revealed a broken drug pipe which, on the Crown case, had been used to sample…

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 Hugo Jacobs v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hugo Jacobs v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 332
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 332
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hugo Jacobs against the Queen, the appellant challenged his conviction for the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that fresh evidence should have been considered by the lower court, which could have potentially influenced the credibility of a key witness. This evidence was said to suggest that the witness's identification was intentionally influenced. Additionally, the appellant contested the sufficiency of expert evidence provided in the trial.

The legal issues before the court were whether the lower court had erred in not considering the fresh evidence and whether the fresh evidence was such that it could have reasonably influenced the witness's identification. The court also needed to determine whether the expert evidence provided was adequate to support the conviction. Furthermore, the court had to consider if the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately address the appellant's submissions regarding the identification evidence.

The court found that the lower court had not erred in declining to consider the fresh evidence as it did not meet the threshold for being newly discovered evidence. The court held that the evidence was not such that it could reasonably have influenced the witness's identification, and therefore, it did not warrant a new trial. The court also found that the expert evidence provided was sufficient to support the conviction, as it was based on sound scientific principles and was properly presented to the jury. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant for the supply of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine be upheld. The court found that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction.

Orders