R v Duggan - [1996] QCA 218

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 218
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 441 of 1995 C.A. No. 465 of 1995

Brisbane

[R. v. Duggan]

THE QUEEN

BRIAN JOHN DUGGAN

(Applicant) Appellant

Macrossan C.J.
Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.

Judgment delivered 25/06/1996

Joint reasons for judgment of Macrossan C.J. and Davies J.A.; separate concuring reasons of
Fitzgerald P.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED. APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPLY FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa - supplying methylamphetamine, cannabis sativa and cocaine to a covert police operative - inducement to commit a crime - exclusion of illegally obtained evidence - Ridgeway v. R. (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 484.
CRIMINAL LAW - application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence - supplying methylamphetamine - supplying cannabis sativa - supplying cocaine - trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa - possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa - possession of equipment used in connection with the commission of a crime under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986.
Counsel:	Applicant/Appellant appeared on own behalf Mr. J. Costanzo for the respondent
Solicitors:	Applicant/Appellant appeared on own behalf Queensland Director of Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	8 February 1996

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MACROSSAN C.J. AND DAVIES J.A.

Judgment delivered the 25th day of June 1996

The appellant was convicted on his own plea in the Supreme Court on 12 October 1995 on eight counts of supplying methylamphetamine, one of supplying cocaine, two of supplying cannabis sativa and one of trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa. He was also convicted of possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa and possession of equipment used in connection with the commission of a crime under the Drugs Misuse Act. The appellant pleaded guilty to all counts only after a voir dire in which he challenged the admissibility of evidence from a number of witnesses including police officers one of whom, whose assumed name was Kruger, he said procured him to commit these offences.

He appeals against those convictions on the ground that the evidence should have been excluded and that without it he could not have been convicted. It seems to have been common ground that, without the evidence to which he objected, he could not have been convicted. His appeal on this ground is complicated by his plea of guilty. However it is convenient to turn first to the question whether that evidence should have been excluded.

The appellant does not dispute that, on the occasions specified in the charges to which he pleaded guilty, he supplied amphetamine, cocaine and marijuana to Kruger. It was the combination of these acts of supply which, together with evidence that he was supplying to others, constituted the trafficking charge.

The first sale of amphetamine occurred on 2 March 1993. On that occasion Kruger purchased an ounce of powder containing amphetamine from the appellant for $1,600. The appellant,…

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 Duggan

Details

AGLC: R v Duggan [1996] QCA 218
Case: [1996] QCA 218
Decision Date: 25/06/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Duggan involved the appellant, Duggan, who was convicted of multiple drug-related offences, including trafficking in methylamphetamine and cannabis sativa, and supplying methylamphetamine, cannabis sativa, and cocaine to a covert police operative. The appeal was centred around the legality of the evidence obtained during the investigation and subsequent conviction. The Supreme Court of Victoria presided over the case, with the appeal being heard by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues in the appeal revolved around the admissibility of evidence obtained through inducement by a police officer and the applicability of the principle set out in Ridgeway v. R. (1995) 69 A.L.J.R. 484, which addresses the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. The appellant argued that the evidence against him was obtained through inducement, which violated his rights under the common law. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence should be excluded and if the conviction should stand.

The Court of Appeal considered the precedent established in Ridgeway v. R. and examined the nature of the inducement and its impact on the voluntariness of the appellant's actions. The court found that the evidence was indeed obtained through inducement, but it did not find the inducement to be of such a nature that it rendered the appellant's actions involuntary. The court held that the evidence was admissible, and therefore, the conviction was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were maintained.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal and upholding the original conviction. The decision emphasised the importance of examining the circumstances of each case when determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through inducement, while also reaffirming the principle that not all inducement will lead to the exclusion of evidence under common law.

Orders