R v Holden - [2014] NSWCCA 230

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Holden [2014] NSWCCA 230
Hearing dates: 20 June 2014
Decision date: 06 November 2014
Before: Johnson J at 1; Harrison J at 2; Garling J at 29
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - charge of deemed supply of MDMA - Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s 25(1), s 29 - judge alone trial - whether verdict unreasonable - whether on the whole of the evidence it was open to the judge to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Burrell v R [2009] NSWCCA 193
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 242 CLR 491
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Smith v R [2007] NSWCCA 156
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Phillip Holden (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Crawford-Fish (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Crown)
Solicitors:
Andrew Harris & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/10079
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-12-12 00:00:00

Before:

Frearson DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/10079

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Harrison J.

HARRISON J: Phillip Holden appeals against his conviction by his Honour Frearson DCJ sitting alone on 12 December 2012 of one count of (deemed) supply of a prohibited drug, namely 5.4 grams of 3, 4 methylenedioxymethylamphetamine contrary to s 25(1) and s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.

The applicant requires leave to appeal: s 5(1)(b), Criminal Appeal Act1912; Smith v R [2007] NSWCCA 156 at [1].

The applicant originally relied on two grounds as follows:

(1) In applying the balance of probability standard, the trial judge's failure to take into account the gravity of the allegation caused the trial to miscarry.

(2) The verdict of the trial judge is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence: s 6, Criminal Appeal Act.

Ground 1 was abandoned by the applicant prior to the hearing of the appeal.

Section 29 of the Act provides relevantly as follows:

"29 Traffickable quantity-possession taken to be for supply

A person who has in his or her possession an amount of a prohibited drug which is not less than the traffickable quantity of the prohibited drug shall, for the purposes of this Division, be deemed to have the prohibited drug in his or her possession for supply, unless:

(a) the person proves that he or she had the prohibited drug in his or her possession otherwise than for supply..."

By reason of the quantity of the drug in the applicant's possession, he was deemed to possess it for the purposes of supply. The only issue at the trial before his Honour was therefore whether or…

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 Holden

Details

AGLC: R v Holden [2014] NSWCCA 230
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 230
Decision Date: 06 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Holden involved the respondent, Holden, who was convicted on appeal against a conviction for the deemed supply of MDMA under sections 25(1) and 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the verdict of the trial judge, who conducted a judge alone trial, was unreasonable and whether it was open to the judge to be satisfied of Holden's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the entirety of the evidence presented. This centred on the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions in question, specifically addressing the elements necessary to establish a deemed supply of a controlled substance.

The court considered whether the trial judge's verdict was supported by the evidence. It was essential to examine whether the trial judge's findings were open to them, given the evidence presented. The court assessed the credibility and weight of the evidence, particularly focusing on the statutory criteria for a deemed supply. The analysis involved a detailed review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged offence, including the interpretation of relevant sections of the Act and their application to the specific facts of the case. The court also evaluated whether the trial judge appropriately applied the principles of criminal law and whether there was a reasonable basis for the verdict reached.

After a thorough review of the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles, the court determined that the trial judge's verdict was not unreasonable. The evidence presented was sufficient for the judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Holden's guilt. The court found that the trial judge correctly interpreted and applied the statutory provisions and that the verdict was supported by the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Holden's conviction was upheld. The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of a careful and principled approach to the interpretation of criminal statutes and the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials.

Orders