Jones v The King - [2024] NSWDC 448

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones v R [2024] NSWDC 448
Hearing dates: 10 September 2024
Date of orders: 25 September 2024
Decision date: 25 September 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
(1) The appeal against conviction is allowed.
(2) I set aside the penalty imposed by the magistrate.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court — By person convicted against conviction

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001
Evidence Act 1995
Road Transport Act 2013

Cases Cited:
AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218
Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137
Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186
McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298
R v Sopher Em [2003] NSWCCA 374

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Jones (Appellant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Macarounas (Appellant)
Solicitors:
Daniel Hakim & Associates (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/278131
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Burwood Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Local Court

Date of Decision:

18 October 2023

Before:

Magistrate Boulos

File Number(s):

2021/278131

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 18 October 2023, Christopher Raymond Jones (the appellant) was convicted of an offence of driving a motor vehicle with an illicit substance, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), present in his oral fluid contrary to s 111(1)(a) Road Transport Act 2013 by her Honour Magistrate Boulos (the magistrate) in the Burwood Local Court. The appellant brings this appeal as of right against the conviction.
The following matters were not in dispute in the hearing before the magistrate.
On 27 April 2021, the appellant was driving a white Bunnings Warehouse motor vehicle which was towing a boat on a boat trailer. At approximately 11:00am, he was stopped by police as the boat trailer was not displaying a registration plate. The Officer in Charge, Senior Constable James Logan, spoke with the appellant, who stated that he was heading to the RMS to have the trailer inspected and produced his driver’s licence. After a roadside breath test returned a negative result, he was asked by the Officer in Charge, Senior Constable Logan, whether he had consumed any illicit drugs within the last week. The appellant said, “I do use THC products. Nothing this morning and nothing in the last 12 hours”. The appellant was then subjected to a roadside oral fluid drug test, which retuned a positive result for cannabis.
The appellant was placed under arrest for the purpose of a secondary test at Ryde Police Station. The appellant requested that his motor vehicle and trailer be parked properly. Senior Constable Logan parked the appellant’s vehicle while his offsider, Senior Constable Joel Campbell, escorted the appellant to the highway patrol vehicle. All of this interaction was captured on car video footage.
At Ryde Police Station, the appellant was escorted to the breath analysis room where the Draeger DrugTest 5000 (Draeger Drug Test) machine…

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 Jones v The King

Details

AGLC: Jones v The King [2024] NSWDC 448
Case: [2024] NSWDC 448
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones, the appellant, lodged an appeal against his conviction in the Local Court for an offence under the Crimes Act 1900. The respondent, the Crown, opposed the appeal. The appellant claimed that the conviction was wrong in law as there was insufficient evidence to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The District Court was tasked with determining whether the Local Court erred in its assessment of the evidence and whether the conviction was legally sound.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime in question. The court had to examine the nature and weight of the evidence, the standards of proof required, and whether the appellant's conviction was based on a proper interpretation of the law. This involved a detailed review of the evidence presented in the Local Court and the application of legal principles regarding the burden of proof.

The court found that the Local Court had made an error in its assessment of the evidence, leading to a conviction that was not supported by the facts presented. The court held that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the conviction was legally flawed. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. Additionally, the court set aside the penalty imposed by the magistrate, in line with the decision to overturn the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal against conviction is allowed.

(2) I set aside the penalty imposed by the magistrate.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Jones v R [2024] NSWDC 448
Hearing dates:	10 September 2024
Date of orders:	25 September 2024
Decision date:	25 September 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	(1) The appeal against conviction is allowed. (2) I set aside the penalty imposed by the magistrate.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court — By person convicted against conviction
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001 Evidence Act 1995 Road Transport Act 2013
Cases Cited:	AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218 Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137 Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186 McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298 R v Sopher Em [2003] NSWCCA 374
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Christopher Jones (Appellant) Rex (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: P Macarounas (Appellant) Solicitors: Daniel Hakim & Associates (Appellant) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2021/278131
Publication restriction:	None
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Burwood Local Court Jurisdiction: Local Court Date of Decision: 18 October 2023 Before: Magistrate Boulos File Number(s): 2021/278131