Legal Research
Cases
R v Lonie

R v Lonie

Case [1999] NSWCCA 319 15 October 1999

Cultivation of cannabis

Supply of cannabis leaf

Causation

Sufficiency of Evidence

Corrupt Police Officer

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Lonie & Groom [1999] NSWCCA 319

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60087/98; 60134/98

HEARING DATE(S): 11 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v John Russell Lonie
Regina v Carla Phyllis Groom

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1; Greg James J at 2; Smart AJ at 11

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0430

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McGuire DCJ

COUNSEL: Appellant Lonie: R Burgess
Appellant Groom: P Hamill
Respondent: R D Ellis

SOLICITORS: Appellants: T A Murphy
Respondent: C.K. Smith

CATCHWORDS: Cultivation of cannabis plantation; Supply of cannabis leaf; setting a device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm; sufficiency of evidence; warning as to reliability of evidence; corrupt police officer implicating other police in corruption; references to Police Royal Commission; meaning of "suffers or permits"; erroneous directions.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
R v Flood [1999] NSWCCA 198
R v Vonarx, CA Vic unrep. 15 November 1995
Gipp v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1012
R v Sanewski [1987] 1 Qd R 374
R v Siouter (1971) Cr.App.R 403
Broad v Parish (1941) 64 CLR 588
Adelaide Corporation v Australasian Performing Rights Association (1928) 40 CLR 481
R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426
R v Reid 1999 NSWCCA 258.

DECISION: GROOM: Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; LONIE: (a) Appeal allowed; convictions quashed on all three counts; (b) Verdict of acquittal entered on count of setting a device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm on any person with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.; (c) New trial to be held on the counts of cultivation and supply.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60087/98

60134/98

BARR J
GREG JAMES J
SMART AJ
Friday, 15 October 1999

REGINA v______ JOHN RUSSELL LONIE
REGINA v CARLA PHYLISS GROOM
JUDGMENT

1    BARR J: I agree with Smart AJ.
2    GREG JAMES, J: I have had the advantage of seeing in draft the judgment of Smart, AJ. The facts of the case sufficiently appear there.
3    I agree that the verdict, in the case of Groom, having regard to the necessity for a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she "suffered" or "permitted", rather than simply knew of her co-accused having the drug or some of it in the house for the purpose of supply, was not supported by the evidence and should be quashed.
4    I agree with what his Honour has said on that matter and agree that an acquittal should be entered.
5    On the appeal of Lonie, I agree with his Honour's conclusion that the trial miscarried and generally with his reasons. Particularly in relation to the counts of cultivation and supply, I agree that the trial judge's observations to the jury on the effect of the evidence of Donnellan undermined the legitimately available use of that evidence, to the disadvantage of the appellant. I consider that the trial judge erred in failing…

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 Lonie

Details

AGLC: R v Lonie [1999] NSWCCA 319
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 319
Decision Date: 15 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lonie, the appellant faced multiple charges related to drug offences, including the cultivation of a cannabis plantation and the supply of cannabis leaf. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court where the appellant contested the sufficiency of the evidence and the fairness of the trial process. The appellant argued that the evidence was unreliable, particularly due to the involvement of a corrupt police officer, who had also implicated other police officers in corruption. Additionally, there were concerns regarding the trial judge's directions to the jury, which the appellant claimed were erroneous.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions, and whether the trial was conducted fairly given the allegations of police corruption. The court had to determine if the jury was adequately warned about the potential unreliability of the evidence provided by the corrupt police officer, and whether this affected the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the impact of references to a Police Royal Commission on the trial proceedings, and whether these references might have influenced the jury's perception of the evidence.

The appellate court carefully reviewed the evidence and the trial process, considering the nature of the corruption allegations and their potential impact on the trial's fairness. The court concluded that while the evidence against the appellant was strong, the trial judge's directions to the jury contained errors that could have misled them. Additionally, the court found that the jury was not adequately warned about the unreliability of the evidence from the corrupt police officer, which was a significant omission. As a result, the court found that the appellant's convictions could not stand, and ordered a retrial to ensure that all legal standards were properly adhered to.

The court's decision led to the quashing of the appellant's convictions and orders for a retrial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that any evidence from corrupt officers is properly cautioned to the jury and that all legal directions are accurately given. This case underscores the critical role of judicial oversight in maintaining the integrity of criminal trials, particularly in cases involving allegations of police misconduct.

Orders