R v Blyth - [2001] NSWCCA 402

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Blyth [2001] NSWCCA 402

FILE NUMBER(S):
60457 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 2 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 08/10/2001

PARTIES:
REGINA

MAURICE WILLIAM BLYTH

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Levine J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/11/0058

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL:
C Loukas
(Appellant)

G Smith
(Crown)

SOLICITORS:
D J Humphreys
Legal Aid Commission
(Appellant)

S E O'Connor
(Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - ss 6 & 24(2) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 - take part in manufacture - appeal against refusal to direct not guilty verdict - miscarriage of justice - appeal against sentence - finding of "principal"

LEGISLATION CITED:
ss 6 & 24(2) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985

DECISION:
Time to appeal extended to 5 July 2001; appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted & appeal against sentence dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60457/01

Mason P
Levine J
Howie J

Monday 8 October 2001

REGINA v Maurice William BLYTH

Judgment

1 Mason P: I agree with Levine J.

2 Levine J: The appellant was tried in the District Court before Judge Nield and a jury and convicted of the offence of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, namely, 3, 4 Methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA - "ecstasy"), being an amount not less than the commercial quantity for such drug; see s 24(2) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 which provides a maximum penalty of 3,500 penalty units or imprisonment for 20 years. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole of 2 yeas and six months. He appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.

3 There are two grounds of appeal: that his Honour erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty; alternatively, that the conviction constitutes a miscarriage of justice. (No complaint is made as to the trial judge's summing up to the jury). More specifically, it is contended, that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty because: (a) there was no or no sufficient evidence of manufacture of the specific prohibited substance; (b) there was no or no sufficient evidence of the appellant's knowing participation in the manufacture of any prohibited substance; and, (c) there was no or no sufficient evidence of the appellant's intention to manufacture not less than the commercial quantity of MDMA.

4 As to the structure of the trial, the evidence which went to the jury was only that called in the Crown case. It fairly can be remarked that that evidence overall was not challenged though its import or significance, in the light of the grounds of appeal before this Court, was.

5 Very briefly as to the facts: the execution of a search warrant on 22 February 1999 at premises at Waterloo, which the evidence disclosed the accused had said were "his place", revealed the existence…

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 Blyth

Details

AGLC: R v Blyth [2001] NSWCCA 402
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 402
Decision Date: 8 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Blyth, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of participating in the manufacture of a controlled drug, in contravention of sections 6 and 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant sought to appeal against the trial judge's refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty and to appeal against the sentence imposed. The defendant argued that the trial judge had erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty due to a miscarriage of justice, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's decision not to direct a verdict of not guilty was erroneous and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court examined the evidence presented at trial and considered the principles of criminal law relevant to the charges. In relation to the refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty, the court held that the trial judge had properly considered the evidence and that there was no miscarriage of justice. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence, and that there was no error in the trial judge's refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The appeal against the refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty and the sentence was dismissed.

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the refusal to direct a verdict of not guilty and the sentence. The convictions and sentence were affirmed.

Orders