R v Handlen

Case [2015] QCA 292

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Handlen [2015] QCA 292

PARTIES:

R
v
HANDLEN, Dale Christopher
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 80 of 2014
SC No 87 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 28 March 2014 (Conviction); Unreported, 10 April 2014 (Sentence)

DELIVERED ON:

18 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2015

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – INCONSISTENT VERDICTS – where the appellant was charged with two counts of importing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs (counts 1 and 6); possessing a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs (count 2); and attempting to possess a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs (count 7) – where the appellant was found not guilty on counts 1 and 2 and guilty on counts 6 and 7 – where the appellant was sentenced to 27 years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 years – where counts 1 and 2, where the appellant was acquitted, related to the first importation of drugs into Australia from Canada – where counts 6 and 7 related to a subsequent importation of drugs into Australia from Canada – where the subsequent importing involved concealing drugs in used computer monitors – where unknown to the offenders, customs officials discovered drugs inside a monitor in the subsequent shipment – where they alerted federal police who found 135.7 kilograms of powder in packages in the monitors which was analysed to be cocaine of 69 to 79 per cent purity totalling 103 kilograms of pure cocaine – where they also found 121,291 tablets containing a mix of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and methamphetamine – where the police removed the drugs and replaced them with packages of a harmless substance, recreating the original appearance – where police began surveillance of the group and placed intercepts on their mobile phones – where the appellant contends that the jury verdicts were inconsistent, particularly with respect to count 6 – whether the guilty verdicts on counts 6 and 7 were inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on counts 1 and 2

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the evidence led at trial included conversations contained in telephone intercepts where the parties to the calls were not themselves called to give evidence or made available for cross-examination; evidence of discreditable conduct involving the appellant’s co-offender; and evidence of the appellant’s alleged accomplice who gave evidence implicating the appellant – where the appellant contends that the judge erred in allowing that evidence to be given at trial and this has caused…

Continue reading R v Handlen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Handlen [2015] QCA 292
Case
[2015] QCA 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Handlen involved the appellant, Handlen, who was charged with multiple drug-related offences including the importation and possession of a commercial quantity of border controlled drugs. Handlen was acquitted on two counts but found guilty on two others. He was subsequently sentenced to 27 years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after 18 years. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was based on several grounds, including the inconsistency of the jury's verdicts, the improper admission of certain evidence, and the excessiveness of the sentence.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the jury's verdicts on the drug importation and possession charges were inconsistent, whether the evidence admitted at trial was improperly handled, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Handlen argued that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, given that he was acquitted on the first importation charges but found guilty on the subsequent importation charges. He also contended that the judge erred in allowing certain evidence, such as phone intercepts and testimony from an accomplice, which he claimed caused a miscarriage of justice. Finally, he argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, claiming that the judge incorrectly assessed his role in the drug importation operations.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not inconsistent, as there was significant independent evidence supporting the guilty verdicts on the subsequent importation charges. The court also rejected Handlen's argument that the admission of certain evidence caused a miscarriage of justice, finding that the evidence was properly admitted and did not prejudice the outcome. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the appellant’s role in the importation operations was accurately assessed by the trial judge, who determined that Handlen occupied a position of authority and acted in a management role. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's instrumental role in the drug importation scheme.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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

The primary judge gave full and appropriate directions to the jury as to the danger of acting on Reed’s evidence without independent supporting evidence on each count.[31] The significant body of independent evidence which supported Reed’s evidence on counts 6 and 7 makes unsupportable any contention that Reed’s evidence was unreliable. The appellant has not demonstrated that the admissibility of Reed’s evidence has resulted in any miscarriage of justice. This ground of appeal is not made out.[31]AB, 632 – 634.Conclusion on the appeal against conviction As the appellant has not made out any of his grounds of appeal, the appeal against conviction must be dismissed. The appellant contends that the judge erred in finding that he occupied a position of authority over Reed and Paddison, acted in a management role over Reed, Paddison and Nerbas, and that Reed was below the appellant in the hierarchy. He also contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive.The prosecution submissions at sentence The prosecution submissions at sentence emphasised the following. The potential street value of the MDMA and methamphetamine involved in counts 6 and 7 was $4.8 million; the cocaine was valued at around $120 million. The street value of the tablets was calculated at $40 per tablet which may be on “the high side” so that this valuation was indicative only. The street value of the cocaine was based on $350 per street gram at a purity of 30 per cent, consistent with the Australian Crime Commission’s Illicit Drug Data Report for 2005/2006. Increasing the street purity of the cocaine to about 38 percent would reduce the value of the cocaine to about $100 million. The subsequent importation involved about twice as many drugs as the first importation and whilst the first importation concerned drugs concealed in 15 monitors, the subsequent importation concerned drugs concealed in 33 monitors. The appellant, who was 39 at the time of the offending and 47 at sentence and had no relevant criminal history, was instrumental in organising the subsequent importation from Canada. He arrived in Australia just before the drugs were due to arrive. He paid for Reed’s travel to Australia. He intended to bring further drug shipments to Australia. The evidence showed that Reed and Paddison were his subordinates and deferred to him. He had control over the finances. He was the only participant who dealt with Shen concerning the distribution of the drugs. In support of these contentions the prosecution emphasised not only the text of the telephone intercept conversations involving the appellant and his co-offenders but also the appellant’s voice, tone and style of interaction which showed plainly that he was the dominant personality exercising authority over the others. In telephone call number 15 the appellant said that he wished Perry had been involved in the enterprise from the beginning. In telephone call number 18 the appellant made clear that he, not Reed, had control over the finances. These conversations demonstrated that the appellant was the supervisor and Reed the subordinate and that no expenses could be incurred without justifying them to the appellant. He was the only co-offender who, in co-ordination with Shen, had power over the disposal of the drugs in Australia.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.