R v MacCormack - [2003] QCA 280

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MacCormack [2003] QCA 280

PARTIES:

R
v
MacCORMACK, Patrick John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 108 of 2003
SC No 179 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 July 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2003

JUDGES:

Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where package containing prohibited imports intercepted by police - where package delivered to destination address under controlled circumstances - where police entered premises with search warrant - where parcel observed open and with wrapping removed - where appellant's person searched - where screw driver and incriminating documents found - whether police could have suspected on reasonable grounds that appellant was in possession of any evidential material

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where package sent from London to Australia - where documents found on appellant's person - where documents evidenced transfer of money by appellant to a person in London - whether documents were evidence supporting appellant's involvement in the importation of drugs

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant did not give evidence - where evidence of a friend who was present at the time was given - where this evidence, if believed could provide innocent explanation for transfer of money - whether verdict of jury unsafe given this evidence

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - TOTALITY - where appellant convicted of importation of a prohibited import with circumstance of aggravation - where appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment - where sentence cumulative upon sentence he was already serving - whether learned trial judge failed to take into account the totality of combined criminality of this offence and earlier offences

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - QUEENSLAND - where sentence imposed cumulatively upon sentence appellant already serving - where consequence of sentence is that appellant sentenced to combined period of seven years - where appellant will have to serve total of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3E

George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, considered
R v Benais [1999] NSWCCA 236, 26 July…

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 MacCormack

Details

AGLC: R v MacCormack [2003] QCA 280
Case: [2003] QCA 280
Decision Date: 8 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the matter of R v MacCormack involved the appellant who was convicted of the importation of a prohibited substance into Australia under the Crimes Act 1914. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contested both his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him. The central issue in the appeal was whether the evidence presented during the trial was improperly admitted or rejected, potentially leading to an unsafe verdict. Furthermore, the appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and did not appropriately consider the totality of his criminal conduct.

The court examined whether the police had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant was in possession of any incriminating evidence. The package in question was intercepted by the police, and while it was delivered to the destination under controlled circumstances, the appellant's premises were searched with a warrant, and incriminating documents were found on his person. The court found that the police had acted within the scope of their powers and that the evidence was properly admitted. The documents found on the appellant's person provided evidence that supported his involvement in the importation of the prohibited substance.

In assessing the safety of the jury's verdict, the court noted that the appellant did not provide evidence in his defence. However, a friend testified that their presence at the scene could provide an innocent explanation for the transfer of money evidenced by the documents. Despite this testimony, the court concluded that the evidence as a whole was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the conviction was also dismissed.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found no error in the admission of evidence or in the jury's verdict, and the sentence was deemed appropriate considering the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the conviction was also dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against conviction 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 MacCormack [2003] QCA 280
PARTIES:	R v MacCORMACK, Patrick John (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 108 of 2003 SC No 179 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 July 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 July 2003
JUDGES:	Davies, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where package containing prohibited imports intercepted by police - where package delivered to destination address under controlled circumstances - where police entered premises with search warrant - where parcel observed open and with wrapping removed - where appellant's person searched - where screw driver and incriminating documents found - whether police could have suspected on reasonable grounds that appellant was in possession of any evidential material CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where package sent from London to Australia - where documents found on appellant's person - where documents evidenced transfer of money by appellant to a person in London - whether documents were evidence supporting appellant's involvement in the importation of drugs CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE AND INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED - where appellant did not give evidence - where evidence of a friend who was present at the time was given - where this evidence, if believed could provide innocent explanation for transfer of money - whether verdict of jury unsafe given this evidence CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - TOTALITY - where appellant convicted of importation of a prohibited import with circumstance of aggravation - where appellant sentenced to four years imprisonment - where sentence cumulative upon sentence he was already serving - whether learned trial judge failed to take into account the totality of combined criminality of this offence and earlier offences CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - NON-PAROLE PERIOD OR MINIMUM TERM - QUEENSLAND - where sentence imposed cumulatively upon sentence appellant already serving - where consequence of sentence is that appellant sentenced to combined period of seven years - where appellant will have to serve total of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 3E George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104, considered R v Benais [1999] NSWCCA 236, 26 July…