R v Lansdowne - [2017] QCA 184

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lansdowne [2017] QCA 184

PARTIES:

R
v
LANSDOWNE, Paul Jeffery
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 278 of 2016
SC No 233 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 28 September 2016 (Mullins J)

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2017

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Atkinson J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine and one count of possessing methylamphetamine – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking and knowing it to have been obtained from trafficking – where the appellant contends the verdicts were inconsistent and otherwise against the weight of the evidence – whether the verdict of acquittal necessitated a rejection of the evidence supporting the guilty verdicts – whether the verdicts were unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was one of the targets of a covert police operation – where the police obtained warrants to intercept telephone communications and to install a listening device at the appellant’s residence – where defence counsel at trial brought an application to exclude 28 conversations recorded by the listening device – where defence counsel at trial only articulated objections to 14 recordings – where the learned pre-trial judge excluded three recordings and admitted the remainder with some editing – where counsel for the appellant contends that the listening device material in its entirety should have been excluded as it was unduly general, prejudicial and not probative of the trafficking offence charged – whether the learned primary judge erred in the exercise of the discretion granted by the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130 – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the learned pre-trial judge admitted 25 conversations recorded by a listening device – where the content of the recordings included the appellant discussing previous and current drug use, past interactions with law enforcement and conversations where other persons discuss methylamphetamine production in the presence of the appellant – where the appellant contends the learned trial judge should have given a propensity or bad character warning to the jury about the contents of the conversations – where no such request was made by defence counsel at trial – where the learned primary judge found that the recordings were not led as propensity evidence and therefore did not require a warning – where the learned primary judge gave a direction about bad character in the summing-up – whether the direction given was…

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 Lansdowne

Details

AGLC: R v Lansdowne [2017] QCA 184
Case: [2017] QCA 184
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methylamphetamine and possessing methylamphetamine, but was acquitted of possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking and knowing it to have been obtained from trafficking. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the verdicts were inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence. The appellant contended that the verdict of acquittal necessitated a rejection of the evidence supporting the guilty verdicts and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The court examined the appellant's arguments concerning the admission of evidence obtained through a listening device installed at the appellant’s residence. The appellant argued that the listening device material should have been excluded as it was unduly general, prejudicial and not probative of the trafficking offence charged. The court found that the pre-trial judge had exercised the discretion granted by the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130 correctly, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The court also considered whether the trial judge should have given a propensity or bad character warning to the jury about the contents of the conversations, but found that the direction given was sufficient and there was a sound forensic reason for not seeking an additional direction.

The court concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the appellant's arguments did not establish a miscarriage of justice and that the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of the discretion granted by the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130. The court also found that the direction given by the trial judge was sufficient and there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Lansdowne [2017] QCA 184
PARTIES:	R v LANSDOWNE, Paul Jeffery (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 278 of 2016 SC No 233 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 28 September 2016 (Mullins J)
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 May 2017
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Atkinson J
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine and one count of possessing methylamphetamine – where the appellant was acquitted of one count of possessing a sum of money obtained from trafficking and knowing it to have been obtained from trafficking – where the appellant contends the verdicts were inconsistent and otherwise against the weight of the evidence – whether the verdict of acquittal necessitated a rejection of the evidence supporting the guilty verdicts – whether the verdicts were unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant was one of the targets of a covert police operation – where the police obtained warrants to intercept telephone communications and to install a listening device at the appellant’s residence – where defence counsel at trial brought an application to exclude 28 conversations recorded by the listening device – where defence counsel at trial only articulated objections to 14 recordings – where the learned pre-trial judge excluded three recordings and admitted the remainder with some editing – where counsel for the appellant contends that the listening device material in its entirety should have been excluded as it was unduly general, prejudicial and not probative of the trafficking offence charged – whether the learned primary judge erred in the exercise of the discretion granted by the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 130 – whether there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – OBJECTIONS OR POINTS NOT RAISED IN COURT BELOW – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – PARTICULAR CASES – where the learned pre-trial judge admitted 25 conversations recorded by a listening device – where the content of the recordings included the appellant discussing previous and current drug use, past interactions with law enforcement and conversations where other persons discuss methylamphetamine production in the presence of the appellant – where the appellant contends the learned trial judge should have given a propensity or bad character warning to the jury about the contents of the conversations – where no such request was made by defence counsel at trial – where the learned primary judge found that the recordings were not led as propensity evidence and therefore did not require a warning – where the learned primary judge gave a direction about bad character in the summing-up – whether the direction given was…