R v Cannon

Case [2013] QCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cannon [2013] QCA 191

PARTIES:

R
v
CANNON, Charles Edward
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 200 of 2012
SC No 743 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Reference under s 672A Criminal Code

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:


6 March 2013; 7 March 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2.   The parties are directed to lodge and serve any outline of submissions in relation to sentence which they wish to make by 4 pm on 5 August 2013, or by such other time as the registrar directs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARDON, COMMUTATION OF PENALTY, REFERENCE ON PETITION FOR PARDON AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – REFERENCE TO COURT – where the appellant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams – where the appellant alleges the prosecution failed to disclose material including an audio recording of an interview with a central witness and the history of that witness being a registered informant – where the obligation for disclosure extends to all things in the possession of the prosecution – whether the obligation of disclosure was breached – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARDON, COMMUTATION OF PENALTY, REFERENCE ON PETITION FOR PARDON AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – REFERENCE TO COURT – where fresh evidence given in later court proceedings raise issues relevant to the credibility of key witnesses at the appellant’s trial – where reliability and credit of the witnesses was in issue at the trial – where the jury was directed to have regard to reliability when considering the guilt or innocence of the appellant – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AB(2), s 590AH(2)(e)(i), s 590AD, s 590AE, s 668E, s 672A

Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26, cited
Grey v The Queen (2001) 75 ALJR 1708; (2001) 184 ALR 593; [2001] HCA 65, distinguished
Mallard v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 125; [2005] HCA 68, considered
Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9, cited
Pepper v Attorney-General of Queensland (No 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 353; [2008] QCA 207, cited
R v HAU[2009] QCA 165, cited
R v Rollason and Jenkins; ex parte Attorney-General [2008] 1 Qd R 85; [2007] QCA 65, cited
R v Stafford[2009] QCA 407, considered
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510; [1974] HCA 35, cited
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81,…

Continue reading R v Cannon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cannon [2013] QCA 191
Case
[2013] QCA 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug and possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 2 grams, and appealed against the conviction. The appellant argued that there was a breach of disclosure obligations by the prosecution, including the failure to disclose an audio recording of an interview with a central witness and the history of that witness being a registered informant. The appellant also argued that fresh evidence given in later court proceedings raised issues relevant to the credibility of key witnesses at the appellant’s trial, and that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose material, including the audio recording and the history of the witness being a registered informant, amounted to a breach of the disclosure obligations. The court was also required to determine whether the fresh evidence raised issues relevant to the credibility of key witnesses, and whether there had been a miscarriage of justice.

The court held that the obligation for disclosure extends to all things in the possession of the prosecution, but the failure to disclose the material did not amount to a breach of the disclosure obligations. The court found that the jury had been directed to have regard to the reliability of the witnesses when considering the guilt or innocence of the appellant, and that the fresh evidence did not raise issues relevant to the credibility of key witnesses. The court held that there had not been a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal against conviction is dismissed. The parties are directed to lodge and serve any outline of submissions in relation to sentence which they wish to make by 4 pm on 5 August 2013, or by such other time as the registrar directs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The parties are directed to lodge and serve any outline of submissions in relation to sentence which they wish to make by 4 pm on 5 August 2013, or by such other time as the registrar directs.

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.