R v Calis

Case [2013] QCA 165

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Calis [2013] QCA 165

PARTIES:

R
v
CALIS, Rob Jan
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 313 of 2012
SC No 112 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 June 2013

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reason for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   That leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

2.   That the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

3.   That leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine – where the fault element for the offence is “recklessness” – where the appellant gave evidence that he believed that gold was secreted in the lining of the suitcase – where the appellant took no steps to ascertain its contents other than to squeeze the sides of the suitcase – where the circumstances surrounding the appellant’s contacts and associates did not suggest commercial substance, solidarity or reliability – where the appellant was conscious of the need to have a cover story – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was aware of a substantial risk that he was carrying a border controlled drug and that, in the circumstances, it was unjustifiable to take the risk – whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant’s wife, who was in Gambia, was not called to give evidence on the trial – where the appellant submits that his wife was with him when he paid for the papers to “get the gold over the border of Sierra Leone” – whether the failure to adduce evidence from the appellant’s wife amounted to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – FRESH EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant submits that the weight of his suitcase changed between the time it left his possession at Dakar Airport and its arrival in Brisbane – where the appellant’s solicitors and counsel made a considered decision not to advance any argument based on weight discrepancy – where the appellant seeks to adduce further evidence concerning the respective weights of the suitcase; the absence of his fingerprints inside the suitcase; and CCTV footage from Brisbane and Dakar Airports to show a change in the colour of the plastic in which his suitcase was wrapped – whether the appellant’s applications to adduce further evidence should be allowed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE…

Continue reading R v Calis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Calis [2013] QCA 165
Case
[2013] QCA 165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Calis, appealed against his conviction for importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine, a border controlled drug, and sought to introduce fresh evidence and argue that the sentence was excessive. The fault element for the offence was recklessness. Calis argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the failure to call his wife to give evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence was based on personal and family hardship.

The legal issues before the court were whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence and whether the failure to call Calis's wife as a witness constituted a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the fresh evidence proposed by Calis should be admitted and if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the jury was entitled to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that Calis was aware of the substantial risk that he was carrying a border controlled drug and that it was unjustifiable to take the risk. The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable. The court also held that the absence of Calis's wife from the witness list did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Regarding the fresh evidence, the court found that Calis's applications should be refused. The sentence was not considered manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offence.

The court's final orders were to refuse leave to adduce further evidence, dismiss the appeal against conviction, and refuse leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That leave to adduce further evidence be refused.

2. That the appeal against conviction be dismissed.

3. That leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.