Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Accused charged with procuring principal offender to possess drug with intent to supply drug to the accused - Whether sufficient evidence to give rise to inference that accused procured and had relevant mens rea

Criminal law and procedure - Drug offences - Whether sentence of 31/2 years was manifestly excessive in circumstances - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 7, s 9

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(a)

Result:

Appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr T R Stephenson
Respondent: Mr K P Bates

Solicitors:

Appellant: T R Stephenson
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82
Borg v The Queen [1972] WAR 194
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234
R v Lopuszynski [1971] QWN 33
R v Maroney [2002] 1 Qd R 285
Shepherd v The Queen (No 5) (1990) 170 CLR 573
Stuart v The Queen (1974) 134 CLR 426
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
West v Suzuka [1964] WAR 112
Wilson v Dobra (1955) 57 WALR 95

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant has also made an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appellant was convicted after trial in the District Court at Perth on 26 February 2002 of an offence under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), namely, that between 8 and 11 August 1999 at Perth and other places, he procured Garry James Witherdin to have in his possession a prohibited drug, namely, heroin, with intent to supply it to himself, namely, the appellant.

Appeal Against Conviction

The grounds of appeal in the original notice of appeal dated 19 March 2002 were abandoned at the hearing on 5 February 2003 and with the leave of the Court substituted by the following grounds:
"(i)that the evidence, and, all appropriate inferences that can be drawn from it, was insufficient to prove guilt, in that, the Crown did not negative the proposition that, even though [the applicant] admitted he had purchased the heroin (from an undisclosed source) for his own use, another person may have chosen [Witherdin] to act as the 'courier' of the heroin and informed [the applicant] of such, and, that this 'innocent' proposition/explanation arises as equally from the proven facts as any inference…

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 Humphry v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Humphry v The Queen [2003] WASCA 53
Case: [2003] WASCA 53
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Humphry v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of procuring the principal offender to possess a drug with intent to supply it to the accused. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant challenged the conviction on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to infer that he procured and had the necessary mens rea for the offence. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the sentence of 3½ years was manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to infer that the appellant procured the drug and possessed the requisite mens rea, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to assess the sufficiency of the evidence in light of the legal standards for inferring intent and procurement in criminal law. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the sentence in relation to the principles of sentencing and the specific facts of the case.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to infer that the appellant procured the drug and had the relevant mens rea. The court reasoned that the totality of the evidence, including the appellant's conduct and statements, supported the inference of procurement and intent. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence.

In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction and the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment was affirmed.

Orders