Legal Research
Cases
R v Lancefield

R v Lancefield

Case [1999] VSCA 176 10 November 1999

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Inferences in Criminal Cases

Double Jeopardy

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 28 of 1999

THE QUEEN

RAY ERIC LANCEFIELD

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., CHARLES and CALLAWAY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 and 11 August 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 176

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Possession of traffickable quantity of cannabis resin – Circumstantial evidence – Proof of possession dependent upon inferences – Guilty verdict only sustainable where only reasonable inference open – Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Trial judge directing jury to disregard "mere possibility" – Whether misdirection – Single act constituting two offences – Whether accused may be convicted of both offences.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. W.E. Stuart	Mr. M. Camilleri Solicitor For D.P.P. (Cwth)
For the Applicant	Mr. P.G. Priest, Q.C. with Mr. M.J. Croucher	Leanne Warren & Associates

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

This application should be granted and the appeal allowed. I subscribe to the reasons assigned by the other members of the Court. To the extent they differ, it is enough to say that the learned trial judge was drawn by defence counsel’s closing address into the error of explaining what is meant by proof beyond reasonable doubt or, in this case, its counterpart, the exclusion of any hypothesis reasonably open on the evidence that would be consistent with the innocence of the accused.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, who is now aged 54, was arrested on 22 April 1996 by Australian Federal Police officers, together with a co-offender, John David Preston, in connection with their possession of a traffickable quantity of cannabis resin which had been imported into Australia. On 30 July 1997 the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions filed a joint indictment in the County Court at Melbourne against the applicant and the co-accused containing one count of attempting to obtain possession of a traffickable quantity of cannabis resin and one count of possession of a traffickable quantity of cannabis resin in both cases contrary to s.233B(1)(c) of the Customs Act 1901. Both pleaded not guilty. On 8 February 1999 the trial of both accused commenced in the County Court at Melbourne and on 15 February a verdict of guilty was returned against both accused in respect of both counts. On 23 February the learned judge sentenced both accused to be imprisoned on each count for a period of two years and six months, the sentence for each to commence on that date. His Honour further directed in each case that after the prisoner had served a period of 18 months, each should be released upon giving security by the recognizance of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. On 23 February the DPP applied to the judge for an order pursuant to s.19(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth) for the forfeiture of $4,000 that had been seized from the applicant on 22 April 1996.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against…

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 Lancefield

Details

AGLC: R v Lancefield [1999] VSCA 176
Case: [1999] VSCA 176
Decision Date: 10 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lancefield involved the respondent, Lancefield, who was charged with possession of a traffickable quantity of cannabis resin. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the respondent's possession of the cannabis resin beyond reasonable doubt and if the trial judge's direction to the jury to disregard a mere possibility was appropriate. Additionally, the court considered whether the respondent could be convicted of both possession and trafficking based on a single act.

The court examined whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the respondent was in possession of the cannabis resin. It was established that a guilty verdict could only be sustained if the only reasonable inference was the respondent's possession. The court also deliberated on the trial judge's instruction to the jury to disregard a mere possibility and assessed whether this constituted a misdirection. Furthermore, the court examined whether the respondent could be convicted of both possession and trafficking based on a single act.

In reaching its decision, the court held that the evidence provided was sufficient to prove the respondent's possession of the cannabis resin beyond reasonable doubt, as the only reasonable inference was the respondent's possession. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury to disregard a mere possibility was appropriate and did not constitute a misdirection. Additionally, the court determined that the respondent could be convicted of both possession and trafficking based on a single act.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove the respondent's possession of the cannabis resin beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate. The court also confirmed that the respondent could be convicted of both possession and trafficking based on a single act.

Orders