McKEAGG -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 26
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 26 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CACR:12/2005 | 11 NOVEMBER 2005 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH JA PULLIN JA MURRAY AJA | 22/02/06 | |
| 20 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against conviction allowed Conviction quashed Conviction of attempt to manufacture drug substituted Applicant resentenced | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | WAYNE ALLEN McKEAGG THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Appeal Conviction of manufacture of prohibited drug Accused embarked on process of manufacture Whether offence of manufacturing drug may be committed before drug obtained by process No drug produced Whether on the facts there was an attempt to manufacture Substitution of conviction of attempt to manufacture prohibited drug Words and phrases "Manufacture" |
Legislation: | Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(5)(c) Criminal Code (WA), s 4, s 10D, s 599A Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6(1)(b), s 33(1) |
Case References: | Calabria v The Queen (1983) 151 CLR 670 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Jack Zinader Pty Ltd (1949) 78 CLR 336 Pinkstone v The Queen (2004) 219 CLR 444 R v BD (2001) 122 A Crim R 28 R v Cervelli [1998] 3 VR 776 R v Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 R v Grasso [1950] VLR 21 R v McCoy (2001) 51 NSWLR 702 R v Thomas (1993) 67 A Crim R 308 Spies v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 603 Brady v The Queen [2003] WASCA 154 Cabassi v The Queen [2000] WASCA 305 Jarvis v The Queen (1993) 20 WAR 201 Lim v The Queen [1999] WASCA 296 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295 R v Abela (2002) 134 A Crim R 392 R v Boyd [2001] QCA 421 R v Everett (1994) 73 A Crim R 550 R v Kaddour [2005] NSWCCA 303 R v Pallister (2002) 131 A Crim R 452 R v Paparone (2000) 112 A Crim R 190 R v Rudzitis (2003) 143 A Crim R 303 R v Yates [1985] VR 41 Shipley v The Queen [2003] WASCA 247 Worth v The Queen [2001] WASCA 303 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : McKEAGG -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 26 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA
- PULLIN JA
MURRAY AJA
- CACR 30 of 2005
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : EATON DCJ
Citation : McKEAGG -v- THE QUEEN
File No : BUN 21 of 2003
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal - Conviction of manufacture of prohibited drug - Accused embarked on process of manufacture - Whether offence of
(Page 2)
manufacturing drug may be committed before drug obtained by…
Continue reading McKeagg v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McKeagg v The Queen [2006] WASCA 26
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of McKeagg v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of manufacturing a prohibited drug. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the offence of manufacturing a drug could not be completed if the drug was never actually produced, and that his actions did not constitute an attempt to manufacture the drug. The central issue before the court was whether the offence of manufacturing a drug could be committed if the drug was never obtained through the manufacturing process, and if the appellant's actions amounted to an attempt to manufacture the drug.
The court held that the offence of manufacturing a drug could indeed be committed even if no drug was actually produced, provided that the accused had embarked upon the process of manufacturing. The court found that an attempt to manufacture a drug could be established when the accused had taken substantial steps towards the completion of the manufacturing process, even if those steps did not result in the production of the drug. The court held that the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to manufacture the drug, and that the conviction for manufacturing a prohibited drug should be substituted with a conviction for the attempt to manufacture a prohibited drug.
In light of the court's reasoning, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction for manufacturing a prohibited drug was quashed, and a conviction for the attempt to manufacture a prohibited drug was substituted. The appellant was to be resentenced in accordance with the substituted conviction.
The court held that the offence of manufacturing a drug could indeed be committed even if no drug was actually produced, provided that the accused had embarked upon the process of manufacturing. The court found that an attempt to manufacture a drug could be established when the accused had taken substantial steps towards the completion of the manufacturing process, even if those steps did not result in the production of the drug. The court held that the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to manufacture the drug, and that the conviction for manufacturing a prohibited drug should be substituted with a conviction for the attempt to manufacture a prohibited drug.
In light of the court's reasoning, the appeal against the conviction was allowed, the conviction for manufacturing a prohibited drug was quashed, and a conviction for the attempt to manufacture a prohibited drug was substituted. The appellant was to be resentenced in accordance with the substituted conviction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against conviction allowed
Conviction quashed
Conviction of attempt to manufacture drug substituted
Applicant resentenced
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.