CATCHWORDS:
appeal against conviction
charge of cultivate no less than commercial quantity of cannabis
two charges of unauthorised possession of firearm
appellant unrepresented at trial and on appeal
application for stay of proceedings
appellant unrepresented and indigent
application refused
appellant refused leave to appeal
grounds of appeal
appeal against refusal of stay
pre-trial voir dire
pre-trial procedures
- whether court should have held inquiry into appellant's fitness to be tried
appellant's medical fitness to continue with trial
appellant complains of voir dire being held in absence of jury
items taken from appellant's home in execution of two search warrants
bail conditions
evidence of identification of appellant
evidence alleged to have been illegally or improperly obtained
seizure of items in execution of search warrant
trespass to property
validity of search warrant
validity of certificate of identification of cannabis plants
evidence that shotgun was previously stolen
evidence of appellant's possession of police badge
evidence before jury in error
irregularity
no consequences
no miscarriage of justice
whether evidence illegally or improperly obtained
no such evidence
juror ineligibility
ground abandoned
alleged improper relationship between members of jury and members of prosecution team
no impropriety established
ground abandoned
execution of bench warrants during course of trial
alleged by appellant to have been observed by some jury members
ground abandoned
double jeopardy
certificate of dismissal of count of goods in custody
amendment of indictment
power to grant leave to amend indictment
separate trial of counts
abuse of process
official amnesty with respect to possession of firearms
firearms legislation repealed and replaced by time of trial
effect of repeal
prerepeal operation preserved by s30 Limitation Act 1987
asserted bias of trial judge
post conviction remarks
no bias or reasonable apprehension of bias established
complaint about summing up
directions with respect to failure of accused person to give evidence
directions with respect to failure to call a witness
directions concerning firearms amnesty
verdict asserted to be unsafe and unsatisfactory
whether jury properly sworn
validity of indictment
whether appellant charged on indictment with offences that could only be prosecuted summarily
whether appellant initially charged under Firearms Act 1996 or Firearms Act 1989
application for leave to appeal against sentence
comparable offender
whether irrelevant or unsubstantiated circumstances taken into account on sentencing
whether prior convictions wrongly taken into account
no error
appeal against conviction dismissed
leave granted to appeal against sentences
each appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s352(now repealed)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s29D
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s44(2)
Criminal Appeal…

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 O'Meara v R

Details

AGLC: O'Meara v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 131
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in O'Meara v R faced charges of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis and possessing firearms without authorisation. He was unrepresented and indigent during both trial and appeal. The appeal was against the refusal of a stay of proceedings and the conviction itself. The court considered numerous grounds for the appeal, including the appellant's fitness to stand trial, the legality of the search warrants, and the admissibility of certain evidence. The appellant also argued about the validity of the jury's proceedings and the trial judge's alleged bias.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the trial judge should have conducted an inquiry into the appellant's fitness to stand trial, the legality of the evidence obtained from search warrants, and the propriety of the jury's conduct. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's post-conviction remarks indicated any bias or reasonable apprehension of bias. The appellant further argued that the jury had been improperly influenced and that certain evidence should not have been admitted. The court had to determine if these issues, among others, resulted in a miscarriage of justice or an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice due to the appellant's fitness to stand trial or the legality of the search warrants. The court found that any errors in the voir dire proceedings did not prejudice the trial. It also determined that the appellant's complaints about the jury's conduct and the admissibility of evidence were unfounded. The court rejected claims of bias by the trial judge, noting that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias established by the post-conviction remarks. The court further held that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and there were no procedural errors warranting a new trial.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and grant leave to appeal against the sentences. However, upon reviewing the sentences, the court found no errors and dismissed each appeal against the sentences. Therefore, the appellant's appeal was entirely dismissed.

Orders