R v Handlen - [2014] QSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Handlen [2014] QSC 40

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
DALE CHRISTOPHER HANDLEN
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 87 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2014

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS

EVIDENCE – EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE – whether inadmissible hearsay – whether evidence should be excluded in exercise of discretion

Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87

Handlen v R (2011) 245 CLR 282

R v Mbonu (2003) 7 VR 273

R v Perry [2011] QCA 236

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965

Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1

Walton v R (1989) 166 CLR 283

COUNSEL:

CFC Wilson for the applicant

GR Rice QC with M Ho for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Burchill & Horsey Lawyers for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the respondent

Background

The applicant, Mr Handlen, is charged with two counts of importing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs, one count of possession of a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs and one count of attempted possession of a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs. The possession charge (count 2) concerns the first importation (count 1), while the attempted possession charge (count 7) concerns the second importation (count 6). The prosecution case in respect of the importation charges is that Handlen was a party to those offences committed by Matthew Reed in that he aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the principal offences (by Reed).

It is pertinent to note that in respect of count 7, the particulars are as follows:

1. Between 8 and 20 September 2006, communicating with Reed and Paddison at various times concerning the progress of clearance and delivery of the shipping container and issues relating thereto.

2. On 17 September 2006, and at other unspecified times, contributing money to meet costs associated with clearance and delivery of the container.

3. On 14 and 15 September 2006, instructing Reed and Paddison to unload the monitors from the container and leave them in Unit 18 pending the defendant’s making enquiries about the process of clearance.

4. Meeting with David Perry at the Colmslie Hotel on 18 September 2006 and at the Jubilee Hotel on 20 September with a view to discussing the process of clearance of the container.

5. On 20 September 2006, instructing Reed and Paddison to make an inspection of the monitors.

6. Between 8 and 20 September 2006, meeting with Shen, and communicating with him by phone and email concerning the progress of clearance and delivery of the shipping container.

The application

The applicant brought an application seeking a ruling that the evidence contained in a number of telephone calls intercepted in September 2006 be excluded as hearsay or alternatively in the exercise of the discretion. The conversations are listed in the document headed “telephone intercepts” attached to the respondent’s submissions. It is convenient…

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 Handlen

Details

AGLC: R v Handlen [2014] QSC 40
Case: [2014] QSC 40
Decision Date: 17 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Handlen, the defendant was charged with various drug-related offences. The trial judge made several rulings excluding certain pieces of evidence from the jury's consideration. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine the correctness of these rulings. The central legal issues revolved around whether the excluded evidence constituted inadmissible hearsay, and if so, whether the trial judge should have exercised discretion to admit it under specific exceptions. The court was also tasked with examining whether the exclusion of this evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court held that the evidence in question was indeed inadmissible hearsay. However, the court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to exclude the evidence. The court held that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value, and thus, its exclusion did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the fairness of the trial was not compromised by the admission of prejudicial evidence. It was determined that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the interests of justice in excluding the evidence.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's appeal against the trial judge's rulings. The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly excluded the hearsay evidence, and that the exclusion did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court's decision underscored the importance of the trial judge's discretion in balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence. No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Handlen [2014] QSC 40
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v DALE CHRISTOPHER HANDLEN (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 87 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2014
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS	EVIDENCE – EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE – whether inadmissible hearsay – whether evidence should be excluded in exercise of discretion Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87 Handlen v R (2011) 245 CLR 282 R v Mbonu (2003) 7 VR 273 R v Perry [2011] QCA 236 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1 *Walton v R* (1989) 166 CLR 283
COUNSEL:	CFC Wilson for the applicant GR Rice QC with M Ho for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Burchill & Horsey Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) for the respondent