PAUL -v- COLLINS JNR [2003] WASCA 238

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 238
Case No:	SJA:1032/2003	Heard:	6 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	JOHNSON J	Delivered:	7/10/03
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JUSTIN HOANI PAUL ROBERT JAMES COLLINS JNR
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Possession of prohibited drugs Admixture Whether more than a trace required to establish possession
Legislation:	Drug Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(2) Poisons Act 1964
Case References:	Bocking v Roberts [1974] QB 307 Donnelly v Rose [1995] 1 Qd R 148 Evans v The Queen [2003] WASCA 194 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164 Police v Emirali [1976] 2 NZLR 476 R v Bourke (1993) 67 A Crim R 518 R v Carver [1978] QB 472 R v Mahasay [2002] WASCA 336 Williams v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 591 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : PAUL -v- COLLINS JNR [2003] WASCA 238 CORAM : JOHNSON J HEARD : 6 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 7 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : SJA 1032 of 2003 BETWEEN : JUSTIN HOANI PAUL

Appellant

AND

ROBERT JAMES COLLINS JNR

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Possession of prohibited drugs - Admixture - Whether more than a trace required to establish possession

Legislation:

Drug Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981, s 6(2)
Poisons Act 1964

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr L M Levy

Respondent : Ms C L Conley

Solicitors:

Appellant : Laurie Levy & Associates

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

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

Bocking v Roberts [1974] QB 307
Donnelly v Rose [1995] 1 Qd R 148
Evans v The Queen [2003] WASCA 194
Fursman v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 7414; 5 December 1988
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Kirby v The Queen [2003] WASCA 164
Police v Emirali [1976] 2 NZLR 476
R v Bourke (1993) 67 A Crim R 518
R v Carver [1978] QB 472
R v Mahasay [2002] WASCA 336
Williams v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 591

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 JOHNSON J: The appellant was convicted after trial of two counts of possession of prohibited drugs, namely methylamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxy-n, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine ("MDMA") contrary to s 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) ("the MD Act"). The appellant appeals against the convictions on the ground that the substances could not, in the circumstances, properly be found to be prohibited drugs. The circumstances are that the certificates of analysis upon which the prosecution relied did not contain a breakdown of the actual percentage of the prohibited drugs as a component of the overall substance analysed. The certificates simply stated that MDMA and caffeine were identified…

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 Paul v Collins Jnr

Details

AGLC: Paul v Collins Jnr [2003] WASCA 238
Case: [2003] WASCA 238
Decision Date: 7 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Paul, against a conviction and sentence imposed by Collins Jnr in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted of possessing a prohibited substance, specifically cocaine, and the appeal focused on the sufficiency of evidence to establish possession and the sentence imposed. The case revolved around whether a mere admixture of the drug was sufficient to constitute possession, or if a larger quantity was required.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish possession of the prohibited drug. The appellant argued that the quantity of cocaine found in the sample was too small to constitute possession, claiming it was merely an admixture. The court was required to determine whether a trace amount was sufficient to establish possession or if a larger quantity was necessary.

The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish possession, rejecting the appellant's argument that only a larger quantity could constitute possession. The court reasoned that even a trace amount of a prohibited substance can be sufficient to establish possession, provided there is evidence of control or dominion over the substance. The court found that the evidence demonstrated the appellant's control over the cocaine, thereby satisfying the requirement for possession. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

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.