R v Baggaley

Case [2024] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Baggaley [2024] QCA 101

PARTIES:

R
v
BAGGALEY, Nathan Jon
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 86 of 2021
SC No 881 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction
Application for Reopening (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 1 April 2021 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 22 March 2024
Date of Publication of Reasons: 31 May 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2022; 26 August 2022

JUDGES:

Morrison JA and Boddice and Davis JJ

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 22 March 2024

1.   The appeal be allowed.

2.   The verdict below be set aside.

3.   A retrial is ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely cocaine – where the Crown case was entirely circumstantial – where the appellant’s fingerprints were on the tape concealing the registration number on the boat used in the attempted importation – where the appellant was involved in acquiring the boat – where the appellant had knowledge of the boat being taken out to sea – where the appellant had possession of a phone with a contact associated with the attempted importation – where there was further circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the attempted importation – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt in the offence beyond reasonable doubt – whether the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant’s co-accused (his brother) was granted an appeal against conviction, with it being ordered that the verdict be set aside and a retrial ordered – where the Crown contended at trial that the co-accused was the principal offender, and the appellant’s liability was either on the basis that he was a principal offender, or that he did acts with the intention of aiding the co-accused – where the appellant’s guilt was dependent upon proof of the co-accused’s guilt – whether the co-accused’s successful appeal has had a prejudicial impact upon the appellant

Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1(1)

Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15, applied
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25, applied
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, cited
R v Baggaley[2023] QCA 249, cited
R v Darby (1982) 148 CLR 668; [1982] HCA 32, applied
R v Smith [2006] 1 Qd R 540; [2005] QCA 204, cited
Zhou v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 278, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley…

Continue reading R v Baggaley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Baggaley [2024] QCA 101
Case
[2024] QCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Baggaley, the appellant was convicted of attempting to import a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, specifically cocaine. The case was brought before the court on the basis of a circumstantial case, where the appellant’s fingerprints were found on the tape used to conceal the registration number on the boat involved in the attempted importation. The appellant was also implicated in acquiring the boat and had knowledge of it being taken out to sea. Additionally, the appellant had possession of a phone with a contact linked to the attempted importation, alongside other circumstantial evidence.

The central legal issues in the appeal involved whether it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court examined whether the acquittal of the appellant’s co-accused, his brother, who was also involved in the attempted importation, prejudicially impacted the appellant’s case. The Crown argued that the co-accused was the principal offender, and the appellant’s involvement was either as a principal offender or as an aider and abettor. The court considered these arguments in light of the co-accused’s successful appeal and subsequent acquittal.

The court determined that the circumstantial evidence, while significant, did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the acquittal of the co-accused, who was considered the prime mover, undermined the Crown’s case against the appellant. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to a retrial because the co-accused’s acquittal introduced a significant defect in the proof of the appellant’s guilt. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the verdict was set aside, and a retrial was ordered.

ORDERS:
Date of Orders: 22 March 2024
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The verdict below be set aside.
3. A retrial is ordered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 22 March 2024

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The verdict below be set aside.

3. A retrial is ordered.

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

That submission ignores the way the Crown case was put. As earlier observed, both alternate cases were put on the basis that Dru was the instigator and prime mover of the attempted importation. There can be no doubt that the Crown set out, as against both the appellant and Dru, to prove that Dru attempted to import the drugs. A defect in proof of that fact as shown by the result of Dru’s appeal, is a defect in proof of the case against the appellant.Conclusion Success on ground two entitles the appellant to a retrial. There is no basis to acquit him, on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.