R v Douglas

Case [2014] QCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Douglas [2014] QCA 104

PARTIES:

R
v
DOUGLAS, Scott David Pelham
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2012
SC No 115 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2.    The application for appeal against sentence be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant was convicted after a trial of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug reasonably suspected of having been imported contrary to s 307.8(1) and s 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where the appellant contended that a sentence had been included in the tendered admissions document by mistake – where the inclusion of the sentence was not agreed upon by the parties – whether the sentence was admissible – whether placing inadmissible evidence before the jury was prejudicial

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant checked into two different motels under fake names – where parcels were delivered to the motels – where powder partly composed of MDMA was found inside one of the parcels – where a man posing as a police officer came to the motel seeking to question the motel owner about the appellant – where inquiries revealed that no police officer had attended the motel – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the evidence of someone else being involved was simply someone coming and asking for the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant argued that the primary judge erred in not directing the jury that the Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to possess a substance and that the appellant knew or believed that the substance was a border controlled drug – where the appellant contended that he attempted to possess the parcel but not with knowledge that it contained MDMA – whether the trial judge erred in his directions on the fault elements of the offence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where the associate to the trial judge failed to say “so says your speaker, so say you all” when delivering the verdict – whether the trial judge erred in failing to ensure beyond reasonable doubt that the…

Continue reading R v Douglas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Douglas [2014] QCA 104
Case
[2014] QCA 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Douglas, was convicted following a trial of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug reasonably suspected of having been imported. The conviction was pursuant to sections 307.8(1) and 11.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence. The appeal raised several issues, including the admissibility of evidence, jury direction, and the sentence.

The court considered whether the inclusion of a particular sentence in a tendered admissions document was admissible where the parties had not agreed on its inclusion. The court found that the sentence was not admissible as it had not been agreed upon by the parties. However, the court concluded that the admission of this evidence did not prejudice the appellant's case. The court also considered whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the involvement of another person in the crime. The court found that the trial judge's direction was not erroneous. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge erred in his directions on the fault elements of the offence. The court found that the trial judge's directions were not erroneous. The court also considered whether the failure of the associate to the trial judge to say "so says your speaker, so say you all" when delivering the verdict amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the trial judge did not err in this regard.

The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for appeal against sentence.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and the application for appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction be dismissed.

2. The application for appeal against sentence be 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.