SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Cunniffe [2013] QSC 330
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
v
JASON MATTHEW CUNNIFFE
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
Indictment 464/12 and Bench charge sheet 517/13
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Sentencing
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
5 November 2013, ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATES:
24 September and 11 October 2013
JUDGE:
Dalton J
ORDERS:
Rulings on evidence.
Various sentences imposed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING PROCEDURE – where there were alleged trafficking offences relating to an arrest in October 2010 and an arrest in September 2011 – where the defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to charges relating to only the 2010 offending – where the Crown then framed the indictment to cover the whole of the 2010 and 2011 offending – where the Crown submitted that the trafficking charge on the indictment was a different charge from that to which the defendant pled guilty in the Magistrates Court so that s 600 of the Criminal Code was inapplicable – where there was an alleged agreement made as to how the Crown would proceed – whether there was an agreement – whether there was a departure from an agreement - whether any such agreement is enforceable or gives rise to an estoppel – where there was no application to stay the indictment – whether the evidence should be excluded for unfairness or public policy reasons – whether abuse of process or bad faith
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 600
AB v R (1999) 198 CLR 111
Barac v DPP; Barac v Stirling [2007] QCA 112
Churchill Fisheries Export Pty Ltd v Director-General of Conservation [1990] VR 968
R v Playford [2013] QCA 109
Williamson v Trainor [1992] 2 Qd R 572
COUNSEL:
J Robson for the Crown
E Mac Giolla Ri for the defendantSOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the Crown
Fisher Dore for the defendant
HER HONOUR: On 11 October 2013, the defendant in this matter, Mr Cunniffe, pleaded to nine counts on an indictment in this court. The first count was a count of trafficking between 31 July 2010 and 7 April 2012. The trafficking was alleged to have been in the drugs methylamphetamine, MDMA, and cannabis. The remaining counts on the indictment were, in effect, the particulars of the trafficking, and they fall into two groups: one relating to the first search of the defendant’s premises and his arrest on 27/10/2010, and the second group relating to the second search of the defendant’s premises and his arrest on 22 September 2011. In the first such group: count two was that the defendant was in possession of a sum of money obtained from trafficking; count three was that he was in possession of MDMA; count four was that he was in possession of methylamphetamine in excess of two grams; count five was that he was in possession of a document containing instructions as to how to produce cannabis. All of those counts related to 27 October…
Continue reading R v Cunniffe
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Cunniffe [2013] QSC 330
- Case
- [2013] QSC 330
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the alleged agreement and found that there was indeed an agreement between the parties that the Crown would proceed only on the 2010 charges. The Crown's decision to include the 2011 charges in the indictment was deemed a departure from that agreement. However, the court held that the agreement was not enforceable and did not give rise to an estoppel. The court reasoned that there was no application to stay the indictment, which would have been necessary to enforce the agreement. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of abuse of process or bad faith by the Crown. Consequently, the evidence was not excluded on fairness or public policy grounds.
The court proceeded to impose various sentences on the defendant. The specific rulings on evidence and the final sentences are detailed in the case but are not reproduced here. The court's decision ultimately concluded that while there was a departure from an agreed procedure, it did not result in an unfair trial or warrant exclusion of evidence. The sentences were imposed following a thorough consideration of all relevant legal principles and the facts of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Rulings on evidence.
Various sentences imposed.
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.