R v MA

Case [2019] QCA 1

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ma [2019] QCA 1

PARTIES:

R
v
MA, Paul Julting
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 108 of 2018
SC No 45 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 23 April 2018 (Henry J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Orders: 11 December 2018
Date of Publication of Reasons: 29 January 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Davis J

ORDERS:

Date of Orders: 11 December 2018

1.    The appeal be allowed.

2.    The conviction and sentence be set aside.

3.    A verdict of acquittal be entered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL ALLOWED – where the appellant was found guilty of an offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs – where police searched a property where the appellant was present – where the appellant did not live at that property – where two witnesses who did or had lived at that property at or about the time of the offence were involved with dangerous drugs – whether the appellant’s guilt was the only rational inference open to the jury – whether it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offence as charged

Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E

Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; [1975] HCA 42, considered
Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285; [2002] HCA 45, cited
Johnson v The Queen (2018) 92 ALJR 1018; [2018] HCA 48, cited
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66, considered
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, considered
R v Clapham[2017] QCA 99, followed
R v Kaddour[2018] QCA 37, considered
R v Sharma; R v Agrawal[2017] QCA 209, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn QC for the appellant
G J Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Philip Bovey & Company Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Davis J and the orders proposed by his Honour.

  2. MORRISON JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the draft reasons of Davis J.  I have come to a different conclusion from his Honour as to the resolution of this appeal.  As mine is the minority view I shall attempt to express my reasons as briefly as may be.

  3. I am able to generally adopt the synopsis of the evidence and the trial as set out in the reasons of Davis J.[1]  However, there are some matters I will attempt to identify which, in my respectful view, matter to the outcome of the appeal.

    [1]There are some differences in my analysis, but for the most part they are not determinative; for example, Senior Constable McManus may have said that Ma…

Continue reading R v MA

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v MA [2019] QCA 1
Case
[2019] QCA 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MA involved the appellant who was found guilty of trafficking in dangerous drugs and appealed against the verdict. The appeal centred on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's decision. The court had to determine whether the appellant's conviction was the only rational inference from the evidence presented, or if it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The central issue was whether the appellant's presence at the property and the discovery of significant amounts of methylamphetamine and cash were sufficient to support a conviction. The appellant did not live at the property, and two witnesses who did or had lived there were also involved in dangerous drugs. The court had to weigh all the circumstances established by the evidence and decide if there was an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence.

The court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant's guilt was the only rational inference. The presence of significant amounts of drugs and cash at the property, along with the appellant's arrival from Sydney and the fact that he did not live at the property, did not necessarily lead to the inference that the appellant was trafficking in dangerous drugs. The court found that it was open to the jury to acquit the appellant based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

ORDERS:
Date of Orders: 11 December 2018
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The conviction and sentence be set aside.
3. A verdict of acquittal be entered.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 11 December 2018

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The conviction and sentence be set aside.

3. A verdict of acquittal be entered.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

In my view, the critical feature here is the statement in Baden-Clay, that in considering a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence are to be considered and weighed in deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence.What did the evidence establish? The offence occurred on 1 April 2016. Police had a search warrant naming Martin in respect of the supply of dangerous drugs.[12][12]AB 33 lines35-44; AB 45 lines 13-20. The sequence of events established on the evidence was:(a)8.10 am: Ma arrived from Sydney;(b)8.39 am: he caught a taxi away from the airport;[13][13]AB 196.(c)8.56 am: Stewarts reversed her car out of the driveway and parked in front of the house; she then went inside again;(d)9.00 am: Goodier (Stewarts’ mother) drove into the driveway; Ma in the front passenger seat; both went into the house;(e)9.28 am: Goodier got back into her car and left;(f)9.30 am: Goodier’s vehicle was intercepted and searched; nothing was found;(g)10.00 am: police entered the house at the second story; Stewarts was on that floor inside the door;[14](h)Stewarts was restrained at the bottom of the stairs;(i)Ma was found sitting at the table; he had two phones (an iPhone on the table and a Nokia in his pocket); in his pocket was about $160, and about $250 in his wallet;[15] there was $11.75 in his backpack;[16] a sum of cash was stacked on the table next to the iPhone,[17] and a return boarding pass from Cairns to Sydney;(j)also on the table was some partly eaten food,[18] and an ice-pipe and lighter;(k)Ma said he had smoked some ice using the pipe;[19](l)a small clip seal bag of methylamphetamine was behind the TV;(m)a package of 394.1g of methylamphetamine (at 73.7 per cent purity) was on the fish tank; it contained 288.4g of methylamphetamine; and(n)upstairs was a small clip seal bag containing methylamphetamine, about 50 clip seal bags, MSM (a cutting agent) and a scraper.[14]AB 20-21, AB 66-67.[15]AB 99 lines 38-39.[16]AB 99 line 31.[17]AB 99 line 33.[18]McDonald’s, which Stewarts said had been brought by Goodier: AB 131 line 19.[19]AB 35 line 33. As for the cash present where Ma was sitting, it was at least $2,900, assuming that the individual sums mentioned ($160 in his pocket, $250 in the wallet) are included in the $3,310 put to Detective Sergeant Milner in cross-examination.[20] The evidence was that the pile of cash on the table consisted of currency in denominations of $100, $50, $20 and a single $10.[21][20]AB 99 line 33.[21]AB 33 lines 13-14. Detective Sergeant Camp was cross-examined by Defence Counsel, who established that Stewarts and Martin were known to Det Sgt Camp through “professional dealings”. But there was no suggestion that Goodier was known to police professionally.[22] Dt Sgt Camp was not there because of a prospect of Stewarts or Goodier dealing in drugs, nor was the defence suggesting that.[23][22]AB 18.[23]AB 18 lines 40-44. Defence Counsel established the criminal history of each of Stewarts and Martin.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.