Legal Research
Cases
Inegbedion v R

Inegbedion v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 291 22 November 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: INEGBEDION, Meredith v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 291

Hearing Date(s): 20/05/2013

Decision Date: 22 November 2013

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at 1
Rothman J at 2
McCallum J at 60

Decision:
(1) To the extent necessary, leave to appeal is granted;
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Commonwealth Code - attempt - necessity for conduct that is a step towards the commission of an offence and is beyond that which is merely preparatory together with a state of mind or intention to commit the crime - conduct must be such as cannot reasonably be regarded as having any other purpose than the commission of the offence charged - necessity to direct on the two separate aspects of the crime, conduct and intent - error in insufficiently separating the two aspects - not an unreasonable verdict - no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred - appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited: Britten v Alpogut [1987] VR 929
Davey v Lee [1968] 1 QB 366
Gillard v R [2003] HCA 64; (2003) 219 CLR 1
Giorgianni v R [1985] HCA 29; (1985) 156 CLR 473
He Kaw Teh v R [1985] HCA 43; (1985) 157 CLR 523
Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6; (2013) 87 ALJR 434
Knight v R [1992] HCA 56; (1992) 175 CLR 495
M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Onuorah v R [2009] NSWCCA 238
Singh v R [2011] NSWCCA 100
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Weiss v The Queen [2005] HCA 81; (2005) 224 CLR 300

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Meredith Inegbedion (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
B Neild (Appellant)
C P O'Donnell (Respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Nyman Gibson Stewart Solicitors (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/299022

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Puckeridge DCJ

- Date of Decision: 03 April 2012

- Court File Number(s): 2010/299022

Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Rothman J and the orders which he proposes.
ROTHMAN J: The appellant, Meredith Inegbedion, appeals his conviction by a jury of the offence of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported substance, being a border controlled drug, namely heroin, contrary to s 307.6(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the Code).
The appellant raises two grounds:
Ground 1: A miscarriage of justice has been occasioned by the trial judge's directions to the jury in relation to attempt.
Ground 2: The verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported on the evidence.

Brief summary of facts

It is possible, at least in summary form, to state the facts. The primary facts are largely uncontentious.
On 8 April 2010, a package addressed to David Okeke, 16 Wolseley Street, Rooty Hill,…

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 Inegbedion v R

Details

AGLC: Inegbedion v R [2013] NSWCCA 291
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 291
Decision Date: 22 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of attempting to defraud the Commonwealth, contrary to section 104.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on the requisite intent and conduct for an offence of attempted fraud. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate in establishing the elements of an attempt to commit fraud under the Commonwealth Code. The court examined whether the conduct of the appellant went beyond mere preparation and whether there was an intention to commit the offence of fraud. The court also considered whether the trial judge's direction failed to sufficiently separate the conduct and intent aspects of the crime of attempt.

The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury, while not perfect, did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held that the jury was properly directed on the two separate aspects of the crime, conduct and intent, and that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the appellant had the requisite intent and conducted acts that went beyond mere preparation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld. The court found that the trial judge's direction, although not ideal, did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and the conviction was not unreasonable. The court held that the jury was properly directed on the elements of the crime of attempt, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.

Orders