R v Johnston - [2014] QDC 69

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Johnston [2014] QDC 69

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

RODNEY WILLIAM JOHNSTON

FILE NO/S:

Indictment no 181 of 2013

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

Ex tempore reasons delivered 25 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

25 March 2014

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

Opinion evidence from the police officer as to what particular conversations mean is excluded

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW- EVIDENCE-OPINION EVIDENCE- whether police officer could give evidence as to the meaning of particular conversations

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79, 80

Anderson v R (1992) 60 SASR 90

Chen v R [2011] NSWCCA 145

Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204

Marchesano v R (2000) 116 A Crim R 237

Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 249

Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573

R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289

R v Fazio (1997) 69 SASR 54

R v GK (2001) 125 A Crim R 315

R v Kashani-Malaki [2007] QSC 163

R v LM [2004] QCA 192

R v Marinovich (1990) 46 A Crim R 282

R v Morrison (2002) 136 A Crim R 222

R v Tonkin & Montgomery [1975] Qd R 1

COUNSEL:

Ms. S. Hedge for the Crown

Mr. J. Clarke for the Defence

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Legal Aid Queensland for the Defence

Mr Johnston is charged with trafficking in cannabis between 29 July 2012 and 18 October 2012 at Rockhampton and elsewhere; possession of cannabis exceeding 500 grams on 30 July 2012 and two counts of supplying the drug.

On the fourth day of the trial, Detective Senior Sergeant Moon, the officer in charge of the Rockhampton Criminal Investigation Branch, was called to give evidence in an expert way on the meaning of drug terminology, the values of drugs, and also as to distribution networks involved with drugs. All of that evidence is clearly admissible.

Courts on other occasions have considered its admissibility: see R v Marinovich (1990) 46 A Crim R 282; Anderson v R (1992) 60 SASR 90; R v Morrison (2002) 136 A Crim R 222; R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289; R v Fazio (1997) 69 SASR 54; and Marchesano v R (2000) 116 A Crim R 237. Now, as I say, that evidence is admissible. It has not been objected to. Now, at p 82 of the transcript yesterday the witness was asked to listen to particular phone calls contained in Exhibit 40 between Mr Dobbs and Mr Johnston and was asked to comment on what the word “fish” might mean. At that stage, the jury withdrew and Officer Moon was asked on voir dire that which the crown proposed to place before the jury.

At p 83.6 he said, “It’s consistent with or could have been terminology used by persons involved in drug transactions.” He then based that opinion, he said, on the totality of the conversations he had listened to.…

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 Johnston

Details

AGLC: R v Johnston [2014] QDC 69
Case: [2014] QDC 69
Decision Date: 25 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Johnston involved the defendant, Johnston, who was on trial for various criminal charges. The dispute centred around the admissibility of opinion evidence provided by a police officer regarding the meaning of certain conversations. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the police officer's opinion evidence on the meaning of specific conversations was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the opinion evidence provided by the police officer regarding the meaning of particular conversations could be admitted in the trial. This issue was considered in light of relevant statutory provisions under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), particularly sections 79 and 80, which deal with the admissibility of opinion evidence. The court also considered several precedent cases, including Anderson v R, Chen v R, Keller v R, Marchesano v R, Nguyen v R, Shepherd v R, R v Blackwell, R v Fazio, R v GK, R v Kashani-Malaki, R v LM, R v Marinovich, and R v Morrison, as well as the historical case of R v Tonkin & Montgomery.

The court concluded that the opinion evidence from the police officer concerning the meaning of the conversations was inadmissible. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the statutory framework and the established case law which generally restrict the admissibility of opinion evidence to experts or those with specialised knowledge. The court found that the police officer did not possess the requisite expertise to provide opinion evidence on the meaning of the conversations in question. This decision was consistent with the principles outlined in the cited cases and the statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court were that the opinion evidence from the police officer as to what particular conversations mean was excluded from the trial. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory and judicial guidelines concerning the admissibility of opinion evidence in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

Opinion evidence from the police officer as to what particular conversations mean is excluded

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 Johnston [2014] QDC 69
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v RODNEY WILLIAM JOHNSTON
FILE NO/S:	Indictment no 181 of 2013
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	Ex tempore reasons delivered 25 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	25 March 2014
JUDGE:	Smith DCJ
ORDER:	Opinion evidence from the police officer as to what particular conversations mean is excluded
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW- EVIDENCE-OPINION EVIDENCE- whether police officer could give evidence as to the meaning of particular conversations Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 79, 80 Anderson v R (1992) 60 SASR 90 Chen v R [2011] NSWCCA 145 Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204 Marchesano v R (2000) 116 A Crim R 237 Nguyen v R [2007] NSWCCA 249 Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 R v Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289 R v Fazio (1997) 69 SASR 54 R v GK (2001) 125 A Crim R 315 R v Kashani-Malaki [2007] QSC 163 R v LM [2004] QCA 192 R v Marinovich (1990) 46 A Crim R 282 R v Morrison (2002) 136 A Crim R 222 R v Tonkin & Montgomery [1975] Qd R 1
COUNSEL:	Ms. S. Hedge for the Crown Mr. J. Clarke for the Defence
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid Queensland for the Defence