R v Clifford - [1992] QCA 25

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 025

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Before the Court of Appeal

Mr. Justice Fitzgerald
Mr. Justice Davies
Mr. Justice Thomas

C.A. No. 248 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

- v -

EDMUND MILLER CLIFFORD

Appellant

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 13th day of March, 1992.

MINUTE OF ORDER

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS

Counsel: A. Rafter for appellant

G. Rice for Crown

Solicitors:	Messrs. R.P. McCormick & Co. for appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions for Crown

Hearing date: 2 March, 1992

Delivered the 13th day of March, 1992.

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court
of possession of a prohibited import under s. 233B(1)(ca) of the

Customs Act 1901 as amended. The relevant substance was about

13 grams of cannabis resin. The appeal is brought on the

grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable, insupportable

having regard to the evidence, and unsafe and unsatisfactory.

As these grounds raise questions as to the adequacy and

quality of the evidence (Morris v. The Queen (1987) 163 C.L.R.

454, 463, 473, Chidiac v. The Queen (1991) 65 A.L.J.R. 207,

211), it is necessary to canvass the evidence.

The appellant who migrated from England to Australia in

November 1989, was at the material time (March 1991) living at

22 Meadow Court, Noosa. This was a house property in a

relatively isolated area.

On 11th February, 1991, a newspaper addressed to "Mr. C.

Dunhim, 22 Meadow Court, Noosa Valley, Queensland 4562" was

intercepted as the State Mail Centre and found to contain

cannabis resin secreted within. The package was a rolled newspaper ("The Sunday Times"), the middle part of which was sleeved in a brown paper wrapper on which the address, stamps and other data appeared.

The cannabis resin was wrapped in clear plastic, and it may

be inferred that it had been inserted between pages of the

newspaper before it was rolled and wrapped. The total of the resin including the plastic wrapping was about 16 grams. Upon its interception by the police a sample of 1.31 grams was

removed for analysis. The plastic wrapping which weighed about 1.68 grams was replaced with fresh cling wrap, and the balance

of the cannabis resin (13.01 grams) was then replaced within the newspaper which was refolded and rewrapped. This process was described as reconstructing the parcel. The reconstructed item

was kept in safe custody until it was taken in a police car to the appellant's street so that a delivery could be made and the

appellant's response observed. Constable Ian Edwards, of the Physical Evidence Unit attached to the Australian Federal

Police, gave evidence of the reconstruction which was supported

by photographs taken at various stages of the exercise. On his

evidence the newspaper was refolded around the cannabis resin, and then rewrapped in the brown paper folder somewhat more tightly than the original wrapping.

The police parked their vehicle between 150 and…

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 Clifford

Details

AGLC: R v Clifford [1992] QCA 25
Case: [1992] QCA 25
Decision Date: 16/03/1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clifford, the appellant, Edmund Miller Clifford, was convicted by a jury in the District Court of Queensland for possession of a prohibited import, specifically 13 grams of cannabis resin, under section 233B(1)(ca) of the Customs Act 1901. The conviction arose from an intercepted parcel addressed to the appellant, which was reconstructed by police and subsequently delivered to him. The appeal to the Court of Appeal focused on the contention that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsafe, given the evidence presented.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the cannabis resin was present in the parcel when delivered to the appellant. The appellant argued that there was a reasonable possibility the drug could have fallen out of the parcel during the delivery, which would have undermined his claim of ignorance regarding its presence. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence of the police officers involved in the reconstruction and delivery of the parcel, as well as the appellant's denial of any knowledge of the drug's presence.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was adequate to support the jury's conclusion that the parcel containing the cannabis resin was indeed received by the appellant. The reconstruction process was meticulously documented, and the photographic evidence corroborated the officers' testimony. The Court noted that while it was not necessary for the Crown to establish precisely what happened to the cannabis after delivery, the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The Court also found that the trial judge's summing up to the jury was appropriate and that the appellant's conviction was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Finally, the Court of Appeal considered the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant was fined $500, with an alternative 14-day imprisonment if the fine was not paid. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the appellant had no prior convictions and the nature of the offence warranted a punitive measure. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders