Legal Research
Cases
Parks v R

Parks v R

Case [2017] VSCA 232 1 September 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0014

SCOTT ANDREW PARKS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, BEACH and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	GEELONG
DATE OF HEARING:	2 August 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2017 (MELBOURNE)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 232
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Parks (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Murphy, 19 August 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Trafficking commercial quantity methylamphetamine – Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Leave to appeal refused.

EVIDENCE – Evidence of precursor chemical – Evidence of phosphorous acid as ingredient in methylamphetamine manufacture – Whether evidence probative of trafficking commercial quantity – Whether probative as to knowledge – Whether evidence unfairly prejudicial – Adequacy of direction on evidence – Evidence Act 2008 s 137.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Trafficking commercial quantity methylamphetamine – Manifest excess – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr S P Devlin	Theo Magazis & Associates
For the Respondent	Ms S A Flynn	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P

BEACH JA

McLEISH JA:

On 10 August 2016, the applicant (now aged 43) was convicted after a trial of one charge of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine), one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis) and one charge of possessing a precursor chemical (phosphorous acid). He had previously pleaded guilty to two charges of possessing a drug of dependence (cocaine and 1,4 butanediol). The jury acquitted him of other trafficking and possession charges. After the verdicts he also pleaded guilty to a summary offence of possessing cartridge ammunition. The applicant was sentenced on 19 August 2016 as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1
Trafficking commercial quantity drug of dependence (methylamphetamine)
[Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AA] 25 years’ imprisonment 6 years Base

4 Possess drug of dependence (cocaine)
[Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73] 1 year 1 month -

5 Trafficking drug of dependence (cannabis)
[Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71AC] 15 years 3 years 1 year

8 Possess drug of dependence (1,4 butanediol)
[Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 73] 1 year 1 month -

9 Possess precursor chemical (phosphorous acid)
[Drugs, Poisons & Controlled Substances Act 1981 s 71D] 5 years 1 year 6 months

Summary Charge 5 Possess cartridge ammunition [Firearms Act 1996 s 124] 40 penalty units $800 fine -

Total effective sentence: 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment; $800 fine

Non-parole period: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

A forfeiture order was made in relation to cash in the aggregate sum of $101,340.

Proposed grounds of appeal

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on charges 1 and 9, on two grounds:

1. That the convictions on Charges 1 and 9 are unsafe and unsatisfactory on the basis that the learned trial…

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 Parks v R

Details

AGLC: Scott Andrew Parks v The Queen [2017] VSCA 232
Case: [2017] VSCA 232
Decision Date: 1 September 2017 (MELBOURNE)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The appeal against conviction and sentence was brought to the court. The primary issues were whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appeal addressed the admissibility and probative value of evidence concerning the presence of phosphorous acid as a precursor in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.

The court considered whether the evidence of phosphorous acid was probative of trafficking in a commercial quantity and whether it provided evidence of the appellant’s knowledge. The court also examined if this evidence was unfairly prejudicial under the Evidence Act 2008, s 137, and whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on this evidence. The court found that the evidence was both relevant and probative of the offence and the appellant’s knowledge, and that any prejudicial effect did not outweigh its probative value. Furthermore, the trial judge’s directions to the jury were deemed adequate.

The court concluded that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the appellant’s leave to appeal was refused. The original conviction and sentence were upheld by the court.

Orders