R v Boyd - [2001] QCA 421

[2001] QCA 421

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
DOUGLAS J
MULLINS J

CA No 134 of 2001

THE QUEEN

VICTOR TILO BOYD Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/10/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was charged with four offences against the Drugs Misuse Act. Count 1 alleged that on
19 August 2000 at El Arish in the State of Queensland he unlawfully produced a dangerous methylamphetamine and the quantity of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine exceeded the quantity prescribed in the Third Schedule of the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987.

Count 2 alleged that between 10 October 1999 and 18 August 2000 at El Arish and elsewhere in the State of Queensland he unlawfully produced a dangerous drug methylamphetamine and the quantity of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine exceeded the quantity prescribed in the Third Schedule of the Drugs Misuse Regulations 1987.

Count 3 alleged that on a date unknown between 1 July 2000 and 1 August 2000 at El Arish or elsewhere in the State of Queensland he unlawfully supplied the dangerous drug methylamphetamine to Brian Douglas Williams. Count 4 alleged that on 28 January 2000 near Ingham in the State of Queensland he unlawfully had possession of things for use in connection with the production of a dangerous drug, namely pseudoephrine and hypophosphorous acid.

He pleaded not guilty to each of those charges and represented himself at his trial in the Supreme Court at Cairns. The jury returned verdicts of guilty with respect to counts 1, 2 and 4 and found him not guilty on count 3.

He has appealed against his convictions and sought leave to appeal against sentence. At the outset the appellant was given leave to amend the notice of appeal by substituting the grounds specified in paragraph 4 of counsel's outline. Essentially that involved contentions that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory, that count 2 was bad for duplicity, that there was a failure by the prosecution to particularise the production relied on in respect of count 2, that evidence was wrongly admitted of the appellant being found in possession of pseudoephrine and iodine in Western Australia on 11 October 1999, and other matters which need not be further particularised in these reasons.

The evidence with respect to count 1 was essentially that the police raided certain premises near El Arish referred to as a pig farm and there located various apparatus used for the production of methylamphetamine. Chemical analysis revealed traces of methylamphetamine in the equipment, but apparently the analysis did not establish a specific quantity of that drug.

Significantly 23.656 grams of pseudoephrine was located and the evidence was that that was sufficient under ideal conditions for the production of 21.2 grams of methylamphetamine.

The second count on the indictment was not formally particularised. It alleged production between
10 October 1999 and 18 October 2000, the latter day being the day before the raid which was the foundation of count 1. There was some evidence that on occasions during that period of time, including for example 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 R v Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Boyd [2001] QCA 421
Case: [2001] QCA 421
Decision Date: 03/10/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Victor Tilo Boyd, was convicted on three counts of drug-related offences under the Drugs Misuse Act, including unlawful production and possession of chemicals for drug production. Boyd appealed against his convictions and sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the convictions were safe and satisfactory, whether count 2 was bad for duplicity, and whether the evidence was properly admitted. The Court of Appeal found that the conviction on count 2 was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the lack of direct evidence and issues of duplicity. The Court also held that the conviction on count 1 should be set aside for the circumstance of aggravation, as the evidence did not establish that the actual quantity of the drug exceeded the prescribed amount. The Court found no basis for interfering with the conviction on count 4. Regarding the sentence, the Court found that the appropriate sentence was five years' imprisonment, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against conviction to the extent that the conviction for the circumstance of aggravation on count 1 was quashed, and the conviction on count 2 was quashed. The appeal against conviction on count 4 was dismissed. The Court granted leave to appeal against sentence, allowed the appeal, and ordered that the appellant be imprisoned for a period of five years, with 265 days of his previous custody declared to be time spent under the sentence imposed by the Court.

Orders