Pinkstone v The Queen - [2003] WASCA 147

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: PINKSTONE -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 147

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
MURRAY J
ANDERSON J

HEARD: 4 JUNE 2003

DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2003

FILE NO/S: CCA 135 of 2001

BETWEEN: ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Drug importation - Movement of drugs from Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Western Australia - Whether importation into Australia

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Application for extension of time - Delay of nearly 10 years - Absence of merit - Application refused

Legislation:

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 17

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 4, s 233B(1)(d)

Territories Law Reform Act 1992

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Application for extension of time refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Mr G J Allen

Solicitors:

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Actors and Announcers Equity Association of Australia v Fontana Films Pty Ltd (1982) 150 CLR 169
Gavin v The Queen (1992) 6 WAR 195
Kidd v Department of Corrective Services (2000) 117 A Crim R 201
Pinkstone v The Queen, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 9503478; 3 March 1994
R v Birlut (1995) 39 NSWLR 1
R v Courtney Smith (No 2) (1990) 48 A Crim R 49
R v Forbes [2001] 1 AC 473
R v Hughes [2000] HCA 22
R v Kwong Yue Cheung (1997) 97 A Crim R 283
R v Lam (1990) 46 A Crim R 402
R v Leff (1996) 86 A Crim R 212
R v Tannous (1987) 32 A Crim R 301
R v Veltmeyer (1988) 34 A Crim R 454
Spratt v Hermes (1965) 114 ACLR 226
Zorke v Lucas (1985) 158 CLR 661

MALCOLM CJ: In my opinion, this application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction should be refused. The application is almost 10 years out of time. I agree with Anderson J that the application is entirely without merit.
MURRAY J: I agree with the reasons and conclusion of Anderson J.
ANDERSON J: This is an appeal by leave against a conviction after a plea of guilty to a charge of being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin into Australia contrary to s 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The offence was committed on 30 August 1992 and the conviction was recorded on 28 July 1993 after a trial of factual issues. The applicant was sentenced to 7 years and 4 months imprisonment with a minimum of 4 years and 6 months.
At the material time s 233B(1)(d) was in the following terms:
"233BSpecial provisions with respect to narcotic goods
(1)Any person who:
…
(d)aides, abets, counsels, or procures, or is in any way knowingly concerned in, the importation, or bringing, into Australia of any prohibited imports to which this section applies, or the…

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 Pinkstone v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pinkstone v The Queen [2003] WASCA 147
Case: [2003] WASCA 147
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pinkstone v The Queen involved the appellant, who was convicted of drug importation. The dispute centred around whether the movement of drugs from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Western Australia constituted an importation into Australia. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought an extension of time for filing his appeal, which was delayed by almost ten years, but this application was ultimately refused by the court.

The primary legal issue was whether the transportation of drugs from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Western Australia constituted an importation under Australian law. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the territorial limits of Australia for customs purposes included the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Another issue was the validity of the appellant's application for an extension of time to lodge his appeal, given the significant delay and the absence of merit in his application.

In its reasoning, the court examined the applicable statutes and case law to ascertain the scope of Australian territory for customs purposes. It concluded that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands were not part of Australia for customs purposes, and thus the movement of drugs from there to mainland Australia did qualify as an importation. Regarding the application for an extension of time, the court found that the delay was excessive and there was no demonstrated merit in the application, leading to its refusal. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed as the court found no error in the primary judgment.

The court's final orders were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for an extension of time was refused. The conviction for drug importation stood, as the court upheld the lower court's finding that the movement of drugs from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to Western Australia did indeed constitute an importation under Australian law.

Orders