R v Antipas - [1999] QCA 168

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 168
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 17 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v Antipas]
T H E Q U E E N
v
TASE ANTIPAS
Appellant
McPherson JA
Moynihan J
Atkinson J

Judgment delivered 14 May 1999.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made.
APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - DRUGS - Whether applicant was "carrying on
the business of trafficking" - Knowledge of illegal actions.
R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442
R v Jacobs [1998] 1 Qd R 96
Drugs Misuse Act 1986
Counsel: Mr C Clark for the appellant
Mr M Byrne for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 30 April 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON JA
Judgment delivered 14 May 1999

The appellant was convicted at a trial in the Supreme Court of an offence under s5(1) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 of carrying on the business of trafficking in dangerous drugs, namely heroin and another dangerous drug specified in Schedule 2 of the Act. As matters developed at the trial, there was evidence of numerous references to "speed", which Det Senr Const Lisa Morrow testified was an expression used by people interested in buying and selling drugs to denote methyl-amphetamine or amphetamine, which is a dangerous drug listed in Schedule 2. The dates between which the business was alleged to have been carried on were 27 August 1996 and 16 February 1997.
The prosecution evidence at trial consisted almost entirely of tape recordings of telephone conversations (of which there were nine) which had been intercepted, together with recordings of two conversations obtained by means of a listening device secreted in business premises at 3998 Pacific Highway, Loganholme. The premises were occupied by a Mr William Clare, who was the person with whom the appellant had been conversing on each of the occasions in question, and who was said by the Crown to be a supplier of drugs to the appellant. The telephone conversations were recorded on 28 August 1996; 12 September 1996 (two conversations); 26 September 1996 (two); 28 September 1996; 29 September 1996 (two); and 15 February 1997. Recordings of these conversations were admitted as exs 1 to 9. The two conversations in the premises at 3998 Pacific Highway were recorded on 28 January 1997 and 3 February 1997 (exs 10 and 11). In addition, the appellant was interviewed by police on 5 September 1997 and made comments on passages in the tape recordings exs 1 to 11, which were played back to him. The interview was videotaped and in that form was admitted as ex 12 at the trial.
The question before the Court on this appeal is whether there was evidence that justified the jury in finding the appellant guilty, or, as was submitted on his behalf, whether the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory. No issue is…

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 R v Antipas

Details

AGLC: R v Antipas [1999] QCA 168
Case: [1999] QCA 168
Decision Date: 14/05/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction in the case of R v Antipas was dismissed by the court. The dispute involved the interpretation of the phrase "carrying on the business of trafficking" and the requisite knowledge of illegal actions for a conviction under drug trafficking laws. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant, Antipas, had sufficient knowledge of the illegal nature of his actions to be considered as carrying on the business of trafficking in drugs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the requisite knowledge to be considered as carrying on the business of trafficking in drugs. The appellant argued that the Crown had not proven that he knew "speed" was a form of amphetamine, a dangerous drug. The court needed to assess the appellant's knowledge of the illegality of his actions and the nature of the substance involved.

The court found that the appellant's argument was disingenuous given that "speed" is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary as referring to amphetamines. The court held that the appellant must have known that "speed" was a form of amphetamine, and thus had the requisite knowledge to be considered as carrying on the business of trafficking in drugs. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

MOYNIHAN J ATKINSON J

The appeal against conviction should be dismissed. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Judgment delivered 14 May 1999 1 This appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons of McPherson JA and of Atkinson J. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - Judgment delivered 14 May 1999 I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons for judgment of McPherson JA with which I agree. The submission of the appellant that the Crown had not established that he knew what “speed” was or that he knew that it was a form of the dangerous drug amphetamine is particularly disingenuous in view of the fact that, according to the current edition of the Macquarie Dictionary, the colloquial meaning of the noun “speed” is “amphetamines”. I agree that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MOYNIHAN J, ATKINSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 168
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - DRUGS - Whether applicant was "carrying on the business of trafficking" - Knowledge of illegal actions.
*R v Elhusseini* [1988] 2 Qd R 442 *R v Jacobs* [1998] 1 Qd R 96
*Drugs Misuse Act 1986*
Counsel:	Mr C Clark for the appellant Mr M Byrne for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	30 April 1999