R v Jackson - [2004] NSWCCA 110

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Glen Alan Jackson [2004] NSWCCA 110

FILE NUMBER(S):
60285/03

HEARING DATE(S): 7 April 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 21/04/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Glen Alan Jackson

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Sully J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/61/0211

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bellear DCJ

COUNSEL:
P. Miller - Crown
H. Dhanji - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
C. K. Smith - Crown
C. McKenzie - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Justices Act 1902 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

DECISION:
See para 48 [1] and [2] of judgment

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60285/03
WOOD CJ at CL
SULLY J
HISLOP J
21 April 2004

REGINA v GLEN ALAN JACKSON

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Sully J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.
SULLY J: On 5 December 2002 the present appellant, Mr. Jackson, pleaded guilty before a Local Court Magistrate to two charges. One charge alleged that the appellant, on or about 14 June 2002, supplied a prohibited drug, namely amphetamine, on three or more separate occasions during a period of 30 consecutive days, and for financial or material reward. Such an offence contravenes section 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), (hereinafter the DMT Act), and it attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of, relevantly, imprisonment for 20 years. The other charge alleged that the appellant, on or about 27 June 2002, broke and entered a particular workshop at a particular farming property, and while in the said workshop stole certain property. The charge, as originally laid, particularised as having been stolen, “a honda aud runner motor cycle, generator, welder, 4 wheel trailer, a quantity of tools, drop saw, and other assorted spanners and sockets”. Any such offence contravenes section 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); and it attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years
The appellant having entered those pleas of guilty, he was committed pursuant to section 51A of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW) to the District Court for sentence. He appeared in that connection in the Bourke District Court before his Honour Judge Bellear. Those proceedings on sentence occupied part of 26 and 27 March 2003. At the commencement of the proceedings it was indicated to his Honour that the original charge sheet had wrongly nominated amphetamine as the proscribed drug in connection with the section 25A(1) charge; whereas subsequent analysis had shown that the drug had been in fact methylamphetamine. In order to rectify that error in the original charge, the appellant was formally arraigned before Judge Bellear upon an indictment containing two counts preferred respectively pursuant to section 25A(1) of the DMT Act and to section 112(1) of the Crimes Act. The property which was charged as…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson [2004] NSWCCA 110
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 110
Decision Date: 21 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the Crown, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the defendant, Jackson. The dispute centred around Jackson's conviction for drug trafficking under the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and whether this conviction was validly obtained given certain procedural errors during the trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the procedural errors during Jackson's trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice and whether these errors were of such a nature that they rendered Jackson's conviction invalid. The court had to determine if the errors, which included improper exclusion of evidence and misdirection of the jury, were significant enough to warrant a new trial or an acquittal.

The court found that the procedural errors did not reach the threshold of a miscarriage of justice. It concluded that while the errors were significant, they did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial or the reliability of the verdict. The court emphasised that the errors did not influence the jury's decision and that the evidence against Jackson was substantial and compelling. Consequently, the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made beyond the affirmation of the original conviction. The court reiterated the importance of procedural correctness in criminal trials but found that in this instance, the errors did not necessitate a reversal of the verdict.

Orders