R v Durant - [2002] NSWCCA 295

CITATION: Regina v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60287/01

HEARING DATE(S): 7/6/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Edward Charles Durant

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J at 1; Greg James J at 26; Carruthers AJ at 27

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/011/0173

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL : Applicant - Applicant in person
Respondent - Ms M M Cinque

SOLICITORS: Applicant - Applicant in person
Respondent - DPP - Sydney

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Drug importation - MDMA or ecstasy and cannabis resin - Quantity in excess of trafficable quantity - Involvement in importation for money - Purchase of drugs by appellant for sale in Australia - Not a mere courier - Appellant in part responsible for the organisation of importation and in relation to distribution

LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. Appeal dismissed.

- 6 -IN THE COURT OF

60287/01

O’Keefe J
Greg James J
Carruthers J
Friday, 7 June 2002

REGINA v EDWARD CHARLES DURANT

Judgment

1 O'KEEFE J: Edward Charles Durant (the applicant) who is now aged 53 years and is a citizen of the United Kingdom, was sentenced by Judge Freeman (the judge) in the District Court on 7 May 2001 on two counts of importing a prohibited substance, in one case consisting of 3.4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine, commonly known as ecstasy, or MDMA, and in the other consisting of cannabis resin.

2 The sentence imposed by the judge in respect of the first offence was seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months, that is in respect of the charge concerning the ecstasy, and 18 months to be served concurrently in respect of the cannabis resin.

3 The maximum penalty fixed by law for the importation of the ecstasy was 25 years with the possibility of a fine of up to $100,000. The maximum penalty fixed by law in respect of the importation of the cannabis resin was two years imprisonment with a fine of up to $2,000.

4 The facts of the matter are that on 25 December 2000 the applicant, who was travelling with his partner, arrived at Kingsford Smith airport from London having travelled via Rome and Taipei. Whilst awaiting immigration clearance, a drug detection (or sniffer) dog reacted to the applicant who was then in company with his partner. He was asked to recover luggage from the baggage carousel.

5 Examination of the applicant's luggage revealed a pair of women's leather platform-soled sandals, in the compartment in the sole of each of which was a quantity of narcotics, consisting of some 1,800 ecstasy tablets. He admitted to having secreted the narcotics in the sandals and further admitted that he had an additional quantity of ecstasy tablets and other narcotics concealed within his body. These were in a condom which was in his rectum and, when recovered, the package was found to contain additional ecstasy tablets together with a…

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 Durant

Details

AGLC: R v Durant [2002] NSWCCA 295
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 295
Decision Date: 7 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, the appellant, Durant, was charged with drug importation offences. The dispute involved the importation of MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and cannabis resin into Australia. The quantity of drugs in question exceeded the trafficable quantity, indicating a significant operation. Durant was also alleged to have been involved in the importation for financial gain, purchasing the drugs for resale within Australia. His role was not limited to being a mere courier; he had a part in both the organisation of the importation and the distribution of the drugs.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether Durant's involvement in the importation qualified as trafficking under the relevant statutes, and whether his participation was sufficient to establish his role beyond that of a mere courier. The court also needed to determine whether the quantity of drugs in question constituted a trafficking quantity and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that Durant was aware of and involved in the importation for financial gain.

The court concluded that Durant's actions went beyond that of a mere courier. His involvement in the purchase of the drugs for resale, as well as his participation in the organisation of the importation and distribution, established his culpability under the trafficking provisions. The quantity of drugs was sufficient to qualify as trafficking, and there was ample evidence to show that Durant was aware of the importation and its purpose for financial gain. The court found Durant guilty on all counts.

Durant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of his involvement in the drug importation scheme. The court imposed penalties commensurate with the gravity of the offence, taking into account the quantity of drugs and the appellant's role in the operation.

Orders