PAPALUCA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 193

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 193
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:30/2001	Heard:	14 JUNE 2001
Coram:	WALLWORK J STEYTLER J MILLER J	Delivered:	27/06/01
No of pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	LISA DANIELLE PAPALUCA THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Drug offence Possession Need for actual physical custody or alternatively de facto custody Need to exercise control and dominion over article Necessity for knowledge of existence of drug Whether verdict of conviction of the appellant unreasonable
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 689(1) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 3, s 6(1)(a)
Case References:	Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Draper v The Queen [2000] WASCA 160 Lai v The Queen (1989) 42 A Crim R 460 R v Cumming (1995) 86 A Crim R 156 R v Filippetti (1984) 13 A Crim R 335 R v Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Solway v The Queen [1984] 2 Qd R 75 Wilby v Gilder [1942] VLR 28 Davis v The Queen (1991) 5 WAR 269 Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482 Mullally v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 940566; 13 October 1994

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : PAPALUCA -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 193 CORAM : WALLWORK J

STEYTLER J

MILLER J

HEARD : 14 JUNE 2001 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2001 FILE NO/S : CCA 30 of 2001 BETWEEN : LISA DANIELLE PAPALUCA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug offence - Possession - Need for actual physical custody or alternatively de facto custody - Need to exercise control and dominion over article - Necessity for knowledge of existence of drug - Whether verdict of conviction of the appellant unreasonable

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 689(1)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 3, s 6(1)(a)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr I Weldon

Respondent : Mr D Dempster

Solicitors:

Appellant : Gary Massey & Associates

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521
Draper v The Queen [2000] WASCA 160
Lai v The Queen (1989) 42 A Crim R 460
R v Cumming (1995) 86 A Crim R 156
R v Filippetti (1984) 13 A Crim R 335
R v Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
Solway v The Queen [1984] 2 Qd R 75
Wilby v Gilder [1942] VLR 28

Case(s) also cited:

Davis v The Queen (1991) 5 WAR 269
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Morrison v Kiwi Electrix Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 482
Mullally v The Queen, unreported; SCt of…

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 Papaluca v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Papaluca v The Queen [2001] WASCA 193
Case: [2001] WASCA 193
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Papaluca, was convicted of possessing a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, namely cocaine. This conviction was made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and the matter has now been brought before the High Court of Australia on appeal. The central issue in this appeal is whether the conviction was unreasonable, focusing on the elements required to establish possession of a drug, specifically whether actual physical custody or alternatively de facto custody is necessary, and if there is a need to exercise control and dominion over the article. Additionally, the court examined whether there is a necessity for the accused to have knowledge of the existence of the drug.

The court considered the legal principles that govern the interpretation of possession in criminal law. It was established that actual physical custody of the drug is not always required; instead, de facto custody may suffice if the accused exercises control and dominion over the article. The court held that the existence of de facto custody could be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the accused's association with the drug, including the location and the nature of the relationship with the drug. Furthermore, the court held that knowledge of the drug's existence is a necessary element for a conviction, but this knowledge does not need to be explicit; it may be inferred from the circumstances. The court found that the evidence provided in this case was sufficient to support the conclusion that the appellant possessed the cocaine in question, and thus, the conviction was not unreasonable.

Given the evidence presented and the legal principles applied, the High Court determined that the conviction was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court found no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury or in the jury's verdict. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellant's conviction for possession of a commercial quantity of cocaine.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.