R v Harms - [2002] QCA 121

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Harms [2002] QCA 121

PARTIES:

R
v
HARMS, Colin Gordon
(applicant / appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 65 of 2001
SC No 228 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction and sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Williams JJA and Byrne J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of trafficking and production of methylamphetamine - whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give a Jones v Dunkel direction for the Crown’s failure to call certain witnesses –consideration of prosecution’s obligation to call material witnesses – consideration of S 57(c) of the Drugs Misuse Act

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CORROBORATION – DIRECTION OF JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – GENERALLY- whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give an adequate warning about accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses who were involved in drug dealings with the appellant – where specific directions to jury on the criminal history, drug habits and concessions received by witnesses for testifying found satisfactory

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES – IDENTITY OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES – whether evidence of witnesses with a considerable association with methylamphetamine was probative of the fact that the substance was methylamphetamine – test for admissibility discussed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL- APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where sentence of 9 ½ years on separate conviction for attempted murder taken into account – where totality principle applied – where alternative sentencing procedures discussed – where concurrent sentence of 8 ½ years imposed with a serious violent offence declaration – R v Everett discussed

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

Jones v Dunkel (1959) CLR 298, considered
R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563, considered
R v Brennan (1998) 101 A CrimR 214, followed
R v Dillon (1983) 2 Qd R 627, applied
R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA No 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, considered
R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed
R v Price and Stamford (1981) TasR 306, applied
R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 435; CA No 94 of 2001, 12 October 2001, followed
RPS v The Queen (2000)199 CLR 620, followed

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his…

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 Harms

Details

AGLC: R v Harms [2002] QCA 121
Case: [2002] QCA 121
Decision Date: 5 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harms involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction for drug trafficking and production of methylamphetamine, as well as an application to reduce his sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in several respects, including in the handling of witness testimonies and the adequacy of the directions given to the jury. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the trial proceedings and determining whether any errors had occurred that could warrant a new trial or a reduction in sentence.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the trial judge had erred in failing to direct the jury on the prosecution's obligation to call material witnesses and in not providing an adequate warning about accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses involved in drug dealings with the appellant. Additionally, the court considered whether the evidence provided by witnesses with a significant association with methylamphetamine was admissible and probative of the fact that the substance was indeed methylamphetamine. The court also examined the appellant's challenge to the sentence imposed, which included the application of the totality principle and the appropriateness of the concurrent sentence given.

The court found that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the Crown's obligation to call material witnesses, and that the warning given to the jury about the potential biases of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient. The court further determined that the evidence provided by the witnesses was relevant and admissible, as it was probative of the identity of the substance in question. Regarding the sentence, the court found that the totality principle had been appropriately applied, and that the concurrent sentence of 8 ½ years with a serious violent offence declaration was justified under the circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning and findings of the court upheld the trial judge's decisions and affirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Harms [2002] QCA 121
PARTIES:	R v HARMS, Colin Gordon (applicant / appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 65 of 2001 SC No 228 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction and sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson and Williams JJA and Byrne J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON- DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE AND CROWN CASE AND REVIEW OF EVIDENCE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted of trafficking and production of methylamphetamine - whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give a Jones v Dunkel direction for the Crown’s failure to call certain witnesses –consideration of prosecution’s obligation to call material witnesses – consideration of S 57(c) of the Drugs Misuse Act CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – CORROBORATION – DIRECTION OF JURY – ADEQUACY OF WARNING – GENERALLY- whether learned trial judge erred in failing to give an adequate warning about accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses who were involved in drug dealings with the appellant – where specific directions to jury on the criminal history, drug habits and concessions received by witnesses for testifying found satisfactory CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES – IDENTITY OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES – whether evidence of witnesses with a considerable association with methylamphetamine was probative of the fact that the substance was methylamphetamine – test for admissibility discussed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL- APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – where sentence of 9 ½ years on separate conviction for attempted murder taken into account – where totality principle applied – where alternative sentencing procedures discussed – where concurrent sentence of 8 ½ years imposed with a serious violent offence declaration – R v Everett discussed Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Jones v Dunkel (1959) CLR 298, considered R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563, considered R v Brennan (1998) 101 A CrimR 214, followed R v Dillon (1983) 2 Qd R 627, applied R v Everett [1999] QCA 14; CA No 311 of 1998, 5 February 1999, considered R v Geary [2002] QCA 33; CA No 241 of 2001, 22 February 2002, followed R v Price and Stamford (1981) TasR 306, applied R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 435; CA No 94 of 2001, 12 October 2001, followed RPS v The Queen (2000)199 CLR 620, followed
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his…