Patterson v Regina (Cwlth) - [2001] NSWCCA 316

CITATION: Patterson v. Regina (Cwlth) [2001] NSWCCA 316

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60589/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 July 2001

PARTIES :

Wayne Desmond Patterson - appellant
Crown - respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Mathews AJA at 75; Studdert J at 76

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/1032

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Christie DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr. M.C. Ramage QC for appellant
Mr. D. G. Staehli for Crown

SOLICITORS: Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co., Sydney for appellant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against conviction - Prosecution submission concerning "lies" - Whether trial judge's directions adequate. - CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - Credit given for period of incarceration - Whether non-parole period should be calculated before or after this credit is given. - EVIDENCE - Hearsay - Criminal trial - Depositions from committal proceedings - Whether admissible when witness not "unavailable" within meaning of Evidence Act. D.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act s.112
Evidence Act 1995, s.65, Dictionary.

CASES CITED:
Edwards v. R. (1993) 178 CLR 193
Zoneff v. R. (2000) 200 CLR 234

DECISION: See par.77 of judgment

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60589/00

HODGSON JA
MATHEWS AJA
STUDDERT J
Thursday 12 July 2001

Wayne Desmond PATTERSON v. REGINA (Cwlth)

JUDGMENT

1 HODGSON JA: On 1 May 2000 the appellant appeared in the District Court of New South Wales before Christie DCJ and a jury for trial on a charge that between about 1 November 1995 and 13 January 1996 in Sydney in the State of New South Wales and elsewhere he was knowingly concerned with the importation into Australia of prohibited imports to which section 223B(1) of the Customs Act 1901-1905 applied, namely narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of cannabis resin being not less than a trafficable quantity applicable to cannabis resin. He pleaded not guilty.

2 The trial lasted 12 days and on 17 May 2000 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On 25 August 2000 Christie DCJ sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for six and one half years and specified a non parole period of four and one half years. The appellant appeals to this Court against the conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.

3 At the trial the fact of importation and the appellant's involvement in it were not disputed and were clearly proved. The only issue was whether or not the appellant's involvement in the importation was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have been knowing in the sense of the appellant knowing that cannabis was being imported.

4 There was no direct evidence of the appellant's knowledge that cannabis was being imported. The Crown case was that this could be inferred beyond reasonable doubt from the circumstances. The appellant gave evidence on oath to the effect that he had no knowledge of the circumstance that cannabis was involved.

5 In order to understand the issues on the appeal against conviction,…

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 Patterson v Regina (Cwlth)

Details

AGLC: Patterson v Regina (Cwlth) [2001] NSWCCA 316
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 316
Decision Date: 12 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patterson appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The prosecution alleged that Patterson had made false statements to police, a claim which the defence argued undermined the prosecution's case. Patterson contended that the trial judge's directions to the jury on this matter were inadequate. Additionally, Patterson argued that his sentence should include credit for time spent in custody prior to his conviction, and that this credit should be applied before calculating the non-parole period.

The court examined whether the trial judge adequately addressed the prosecution's submission concerning Patterson's alleged lies. It concluded that the judge's directions were sufficient to guide the jury in evaluating the credibility of the evidence. Regarding the sentencing issue, the court held that credit for pre-sentence incarceration should be calculated before determining the non-parole period. The court also considered the admissibility of depositions from committal proceedings, determining that these were not admissible as hearsay where the witness was not unavailable under the Evidence Act.

Patterson's appeal against his conviction was dismissed, and the sentence was varied accordingly. The court found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the key issues, and that the sentence should reflect the appropriate credit for pre-sentence incarceration.

Orders