R v Brennan & Sipple - [2024] QSCPR 27

QUEENSLAND COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

© The State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General). Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act
1968 (Cth), all other rights are reserved. Providing a copy to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining professional advice is
considered fair use under section 43(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and does not require copyright release. For all other uses,
you must not copy, modify or distribute this material without the written authority of the Director, Recording and Transcription

Services, Queensland Courts.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
COPLEY J
Indictment No 1011 of 2023
THE KING
v.

JORDAN ROMAN BRENNAN Defendants
BRENDAN JOHN SIPPLE
BRISBANE
10.38 AM, THURSDAY, 23 MAY 2024
DAY 1
RULING
23052024/BSD13/Copley J
HIS HONOUR: Well, I will give my ruling. It is going to take a few minutes because I am going to read it. The accused men, Jordan Brennan and Brendan Sipple, are to stand trial on Monday 27 May 2024. Each is to be tried on a count of
attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-
5 controlled drug contrary to section 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth). Each count is pleaded to have occurred between 2 June 2020 and 13 June 2020. They have not been indicted on the same count; rather count 1 concerns Brennan only and Count 2 concerns Sipple only.

10 On 20 May 2024, both accused applied pursuant to section 590AA of the Criminal Code (Queensland) for a ruling that evidence, broadly identified in their counsels’ joint outline of submissions, be excluded from the Prosecution case against each of them. The Prosecution has provided particulars which contain, among other things, particulars of the conduct that each accused allegedly engaged in in his attempt to
15       possess a border control drug, which the Prosecution alleges each believed to be in a particular shipping container stored at or near the port of Brisbane.
In relation to Brennan, the conduct relied on is his attendance at or in the vicinity of the port and things done there with Sipple on 2, 3 – sorry, things done and/or said
20       there with Sipple on 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12 June 2020. And also his attendance there and actions done in the absence of Sipple and things he said in the absence of Sipple on the 6th of June 2020. In relation to Sipple, the conduct relied on is his attendances at or in the vicinity of the port and things he did there or said or was a participant in conversations with Brennan on 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12 June 2020.
25
As I understand the Prosecution case, the Prosecution will largely be relying on a combination of surveillance evidence, CCTV footage, intercepted and recorded telephone calls, and recorded face-to-face conversations Brennan and Sipple had between themselves in an endeavour to prove count 1 against Brennan and count 2
30       against Sipple.
The evidence to which…

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 Brennan & Sipple

Details

AGLC: R v Brennan & Sipple [2024] QSCPR 27
Case: [2024] QSCPR 27
Decision Date: 23 MAY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Brennan & Sipple involved the accused, Jordan Brennan and Brendan John Sipple, facing charges of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of an unlawfully imported border-controlled drug, specifically cocaine, under section 307.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth). The alleged offence took place between 2 June 2020 and 13 June 2020, with separate counts for each accused. Both Brennan and Sipple applied for the exclusion of evidence that the prosecution sought to introduce against them, including intercepted communications and surveillance footage from around the port of Brisbane.

The legal issues before the court were whether the intercepted communications and surveillance evidence were admissible under the law. The defence argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it was either similar fact evidence or irrelevant to the charges at hand. The prosecution contended that the evidence was relevant to the accuseds’ state of mind and intent at the time of the alleged offence, and that it was not similar fact evidence.

Justice Copley, after considering the submissions and relevant legal principles, ruled that the intercepted communications were admissible as they were relevant to the accuseds’ state of mind and intent. The court found that the evidence was not inadmissible merely because it revealed the commission of other offences. Instead, the focus was on the relevance of the evidence to the facts in issue, including the accuseds’ actions and intentions. The court noted that some parts of the intercepted communications were inextricably intertwined with the discussions about the attempted possession of the border-controlled drug, while other parts were excluded as they related to other occasions and were not relevant to the charges. The surveillance evidence was also deemed admissible as it supported the intercepted communications evidence. Directions would be given to the jury to ensure they understood the proper use of this evidence.

Orders