R v Christie - [2003] QCA 413

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Christie [2003] QCA 413
PARTIES: R
v
CHRISTIE, Donovan Kimball
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 115 of 2003
SC No 6 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX 17 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 17 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL - where appellant convicted of supplying and trafficking methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa - where strong circumstantial case in respect of trafficking - where appellant raises a number of criticisms in relation to the evidence - whether verdict cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE- POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE - ADMINISTERING CAUTION - GENERALLY - where, in police interview appellant said his sole source of income was the sole parent's pension - where bank records disclosed a large amount of undisclosed income - where police officers did not follow precise wording of required warning - whether admission of total income in police interview was illegally or improperly obtained
COUNSEL: Appellant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin for respondent
SOLICITORS: Appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: After a trial lasting five days the appellant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis

sativa. He was also convicted on two counts of supplying
those drugs, one of possession of cannabis sativa and one of
possession of a set of digital scales, a quantity of clipseal
plastic bags and a ceramic bowl and pestle used in connection

with the commission of the crime of supplying those drugs. He

appeals against those convictions.

The evidence against the appellant was in seven main categories. The first was direct evidence from two of his former customers, Gould and Gilchrist. The second was

surveillance evidence of a large number of meetings between
the appellant on the one hand and a number of unidentified
people on the other. The third was the police evidence of the
apprehension of Gilchrist in possession of methylamphetamine

immediately after his meeting with the appellant on 7 December

2001. The fourth was police evidence of an interception of
other apparent customers of the appellant found to be in
possession of methylamphetamine shortly after a meeting with
the appellant in November 2001. The fifth was police evidence

that an apparent customer of the appellant's had apparently

disposed of a sharps kit in a bin shortly after his meeting
with the appellant on 16 November 2001. 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 Christie

Details

AGLC: R v Christie [2003] QCA 413
Case: [2003] QCA 413
Decision Date: 17/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia against a conviction of the appellant for supplying and trafficking methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa. The appellant argued that the conviction was unreasonable or insupportable due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence. The primary issues for the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether there were any significant errors in the trial process that could have led to an unreasonable verdict.

The court examined the evidence presented at the trial and concluded that it was strong and circumstantial but sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the evidence, including the appellant's conduct, associations, and statements, provided a comprehensive picture that supported the jury's verdict. The court held that there were no significant errors in the trial process and that the jury was properly directed on the applicable law. The court also rejected the appellant's criticisms of the evidence, finding that they did not undermine the overall strength of the case against the appellant. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal against the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Christie [2003] QCA 413
PARTIES:	R v CHRISTIE, Donovan Kimball (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 115 of 2003 SC No 6 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX	17 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL - where appellant convicted of supplying and trafficking methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa - where strong circumstantial case in respect of trafficking - where appellant raises a number of criticisms in relation to the evidence - whether verdict cannot be supported having regard to the evidence
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE- POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE - ADMINISTERING CAUTION - GENERALLY - where, in police interview appellant said his sole source of income was the sole parent's pension - where bank records disclosed a large amount of undisclosed income - where police officers did not follow precise wording of required warning - whether admission of total income in police interview was illegally or improperly obtained
COUNSEL:	Appellant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent