Legal Research
Cases
Keller v R

Keller v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 204 26 July 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204

HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; Hall J at 58; Latham J at 59

DECISION: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; new trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - expert evidence as to the subject matter of conversations being drug supply - whether such evidence should have been admitted - criminal law - expert evidence - sufficiency of summing up.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act
Criminal Appeal Act

CASES CITED: HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 414
Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
R v David & Gugea (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 October 1995)
R v Huynh (unreported, NSWCCA, 13 May 1996
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444

PARTIES: Matthew Glen Keller v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/3050

COUNSEL: S. Odgers SC (Appellant)
G. Rowling (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Roderick Storie (Appellant)
S. Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/1263

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Urquhart DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 22 October 2003

2004/3050

STUDDERT J
HALL J
LATHAM J
Wednesday 26 July 2006

MATTHEW GLEN KELLER v REGINA

Judgment

1 STUDDERT J: The appellant, Matthew Glen Keller, stood trial in the District Court with the co-accused, Anthony Denholm. The indictment contained two counts against the appellant:

Count 1 - that he between 1 October and 13 October 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did supply a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, being in a quantity which was not less than a commercial quantity;

In the alternative, Count 2 - that he between 1 October and 13 October 2001 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales did knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine, being in a quantity which was not less than a commercial quantity.

2 The co-accused was charged on one count only (count 3), in the same terms as Count 1.

3 The jury found the appellant guilty in respect of count 1 and the co-accused guilty in respect of count 3.

4 On 17 December 2003 the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for eight years six months to commence on 22 October 2003. A non parole period of five years four months was set, to expire on 2 February 2009.

5 The appellant appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.

6 The first and second grounds of appeal focus upon the evidence of a police officer, Ian Smith, and opinion evidence which he gave concerning the meaning of various words uttered in intercepted conversations. The third ground of appeal raised a question as to "fresh evidence". Before considering the grounds of appeal, it is appropriate to outline the prosecution case.

7 The Crown case was that the appellant in Melbourne arranged with a person named Shannon Purdie in Sydney to buy a kilogram of cocaine. The appellant sent the co-accused to Sydney with money…

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 Keller v R

Details

AGLC: Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 204
Decision Date: 26 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved Keller, the appellant, who was charged with drug-related offences. The primary issue before the court was whether expert evidence concerning the subject matter of conversations related to drug supply should have been admitted. Additionally, the court examined whether the summing up by the trial judge was sufficient. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal.

The court had to determine if the trial judge erred in admitting the expert evidence, which suggested that the content of the conversations was about drug supply. The defence argued that such evidence was inadmissible hearsay and unreliable. The second issue pertained to the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge, particularly whether it correctly directed the jury on the relevance and weight of the expert evidence.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the expert evidence, as it was relevant and could assist the jury in understanding the nature of the conversations. The court further found that the summing up was sufficient, as it provided adequate direction on the considerations regarding the expert evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction and sentence remained in place as determined by the trial court.

Orders