Legal Research
Cases
R v Cannon

R v Cannon

Case [2007] QCA 205 22 June 2007

Appeal

Miscarriage of Justice

Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205

PARTIES:

R
v
CANNON, Charles Edward
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 317 of 2005
SC No 743 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 May 2007

JUDGES:

Williams, Keane and Holmes JJA
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERALLY – where evidence was given by various witnesses at trial who had received benefits under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether directions given by learned trial judge in relation to this evidence were adequate – whether verdicts were unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where learned judge ruled that various pieces of evidence were admissible, including evidence obtained through use of a listening advice, evidence obtained through execution of a search warrant, and conversations admitted under the Tripodi principle – whether evidence was properly admitted – whether the learned trial judge's discretion miscarried

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to 12 years and eights months imprisonment on the trafficking charge, with an automatic serious violent offence declaration imposed – where a concurrent term of two years imprisonment was imposed for the possession charge – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), Schedule 1, Schedule 2
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 (Qld), s 69, s 127

Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 100, cited
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered
Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69, cited
R v Burrows[2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004, cited
R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440; CA No 74 of 2004, 19 November 2004, cited

R vCannon[2005] QCA 41; CA No 293 of 2004, 28 February 2005, cited
R v Christensen [2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002, cited
R v Douglas [1994] QCA 267, cited
R v Fisher [2007] QCA 105; CA No 215 of 2006, 30 March 2007,
R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, cited
R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70; CA No…

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 Cannon

Details

AGLC: R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205
Case: [2007] QCA 205
Decision Date: 22 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cannon involved an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession, and sentenced to a total of 14 years and 8 months imprisonment. The appeal challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The primary issues for the court were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding certain evidence were adequate, whether certain pieces of evidence were properly admitted, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding evidence given by witnesses who had received benefits under s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) were adequate. The court also considered whether the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting various pieces of evidence, including evidence obtained through the use of a listening device, evidence obtained through the execution of a search warrant, and conversations admitted under the Tripodi principle. The court found that the trial judge's directions were adequate and that the evidence was properly admitted. The court also found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting evidence and directing the jury. The sentence imposed was also found to be reasonable and not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205

Most Recent Citation

R v Nabhan; R v Kostopoulos [2007] QCA 266

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v Cannon
[2013] QCA 191 Para 1

…es which were adverse to their reliability. The significance of these directions was noted in the appellant’s earlier appeal.[46] [46] R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205 at [57]-[58].…
State of Queensland v Cannon
[2011] QSC 75 Para 1

…trial. However, there is no evidence that aid was granted or that there is any real prospect that his conviction will be set aside. [4] R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205.…
R v Robinson
[2010] QCA 377 Para 1

…f trafficking of no more than eight years imprisonment should have been imposed. The offence should be declared to be a serious violent offence. [19][2007] QCA 205.…
R v Sullivan
[2009] QCA 344 Para 1

…rested. The evidence revealed that the appellant had received about a million dollars from unknown sources between January 1999 and January 2003. [10][2007] QCA 205.…
R v O'Brien
[2009] QCA 82 Para 1

…cisions in cases of comparable seriousness: see, eg, R v Jacobs, [16] R v Lowe ,[17] and R v Cannon. [18] [16][1997] QCA 114. [17][2004] QCA 398. [18][2007] QCA 205.…
R v. Jenkins, Rollason & Brophy
[2008] QCA 369 Para 1

…mposed on Brophy of 17 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive; a sentence in the range of 13 to 14 years imprisonment should be substituted. [14][2007] QCA 205. [15][2004] QCA 398. [16][2007] QCA 266. [17][2006] QCA 311.…
R v. Nabhan ; R v Kostopoulos
[2007] QCA 266 Para 1

…mposed in this case, even allowing for the plea of guilty, was outside a proper range for the offending for which Kostopoulos was to be sentenced. [2][2007] QCA 205. [3][2006] QCA 311. [4][2007] QCA 64.…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Fischer
[2007] QCA 105 Para 1

…t clear direction overcame any risk of impermissible reasoning. No miscarriage of justice resulted from the admission of the evidence. [5] R v Fisher [2007] QCA 105 at [27]. [6] R v Douglas [1994] QCA 267.…
R v Kashton
[2005] QCA 70 Para 1

…. [10][2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002 [11] [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33 [12][2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004 [13][2005] QCA 70; CA No 416 of 2004, 17 March 2005…
R v Cannon
[2005] QCA 41 Para 1

…tence was varied to a period of two years imprisonment suspended forthwith and the order making the sentence cumulative was set aside. [8] R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41; CA No 293 of 2004, 28 February 2005…
R v Cannon
[2004] QCA 440 Para 1

…2004 the Court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial; that meant the sentence imposed on 26 February 2004 was set aside.[7] [7] R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440; CA No 74 of 2004, 19 November 2004…
R v Lowe
[2004] QCA 398 Para 1

…ars to allow for the offender's ill-health. The offender there was slightly older than the present appellant and had a long term criminal history. [9][2004] QCA 398…
R v Burrows
[2004] QCA 306 Para 1

…to support the sentence imposed on the appellant here. [10][2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002 [11] [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33 [12][2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004 [13][2005] QCA 70; CA No 416 of 2004, 17 March 2005…
R v Christensen
[2002] QCA 113 Para 1

…cessary to refer to the sentences imposed in those cases; suffice it to say that they tend to support the sentence imposed on the appellant here. [10][2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002 [11] [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33 [12][2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004 [13][2005] QCA 70; CA No…
R v Geary
[2002] QCA 33 Para 1

…say that they tend to support the sentence imposed on the appellant here. [10][2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002 [11] [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33 [12][2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004 [13][2005] QCA 70; CA No 416 of 2004, 17 March 2005…
Ousley v The Queen
[1997] HCA 49

…, s 127 Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 100, cited Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69, cited R v Burrows [2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004, cited R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440; CA No 74 of 2004, 19 November 2004, cited R v Cannon [2005] QCA 41; CA No 293 of 2004,…
R v Douglas
[1994] QCA 267 Para 1

…mpermissible reasoning. No miscarriage of justice resulted from the admission of the evidence. [5] R v Fisher [2007] QCA 105 at [27]. [6] R v Douglas [1994] QCA 267.…
Ahern v The Queen
[1988] HCA 39 Para 1

…ng whether to admit the evidence; in that context the question was whether there was reasonable evidence of the appellant's participation.[4] [4] Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 100.…
Bunning v Cross
[1978] HCA 22

…wers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 69, s 127 Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 100, cited Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69, cited R v Burrows [2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004, cited R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440; CA No 74 of 2004, 19 November 2004, ci…
Tripodi v the Queen
[1961] HCA 22 Para 1

…a small amount of methylamphetamine at his own house, and evidence of his financial situation should not have been admitted. [1] Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
13A 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld)
69 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
590AA 1 mention

CITATION:	R v Cannon [2007] QCA 205
PARTIES:	R v CANNON, Charles Edward (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 317 of 2005 SC No 743 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 May 2007
JUDGES:	Williams, Keane and Holmes JJA Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERALLY – where evidence was given by various witnesses at trial who had received benefits under s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether directions given by learned trial judge in relation to this evidence were adequate – whether verdicts were unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE OR IN WHICH MISCARRIAGE NOT SUBSTANTIAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where learned judge ruled that various pieces of evidence were admissible, including evidence obtained through use of a listening advice, evidence obtained through execution of a search warrant, and conversations admitted under the Tripodi principle – whether evidence was properly admitted – whether the learned trial judge's discretion miscarried CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant sentenced to 12 years and eights months imprisonment on the trafficking charge, with an automatic serious violent offence declaration imposed – where a concurrent term of two years imprisonment was imposed for the possession charge – whether sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), Schedule 1, Schedule 2 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000 (Qld), s 69, s 127 Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 100, cited Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54, considered Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69, cited R v Burrows[2004] QCA 306; CA No 166 of 2004, 20 August 2004, cited R v Cannon [2004] QCA 440; CA No 74 of 2004, 19 November 2004, cited R vCannon[2005] QCA 41; CA No 293 of 2004, 28 February 2005, cited R v Christensen [2002] QCA 113; CA No 313 of 2001, 22 March 2002, cited R v Douglas [1994] QCA 267, cited R v Fisher [2007] QCA 105; CA No 215 of 2006, 30 March 2007, R v Geary [2003] 1 Qd R 64; [2002] QCA 33, cited R v Kashton[2005] QCA 70; CA No…