Legal Research
Cases
R v Maroney

R v Maroney

Case [2000] QCA 310 4 August 2000

Appeal

Breach of Contract

Complicity

Accessorial Liability

Appeal Against Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310

PARTIES: R
v
MARONEY, Paul Steven
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:
CA No 20 of 2000
CA No 172 of 2000

SC No 438 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction
Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 4 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 5 July 2000

JUDGES: Davies, McPherson and Thomas JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Davies and McPherson JJA concurring as to the orders made, Thomas JA dissenting.

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Application for extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – STATUTORY PROVISIONS – AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR PROCURING – the appellant was indicted for the unlawful supply of a dangerous drug to another who was within a correctional institution – appellant was in prison at time of offence and arranged for two other persons to supply the drug to the appellant – effectively the appellant was charged with supplying a drug to himself – the appellant demurred to the indictment on the ground that it did not disclose an offence – demurrer was overruled and appellant was found guilty of supply contrary to s 6 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – consideration of the competing principles as to when accessorial liability under s 7 Criminal Code (Qld) will be excluded for prohibited bilateral transactions – whether the complicity provisions were inapplicable for the counselled supply

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – application for extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where no satisfactory explanation given for delay – where appellant had substantial criminal history and no remorse was shown – where the introduction of an unlawful drug into a correctional institution undermines prison discipline – whether a fresh recommendation for parole was necessary – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1), s 7(2), s 7(3), s 7(4), s 598
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 4, s 5, s 6, s 8, s 9
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 157(3)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 54

Blackmore v Linton [1961] VR 374, considered
Ellis v Guerin [1925] SASR 282, considered
Jenks v Turpin (1884) 13 QBD 505, considered
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, considered
Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, considered
McAteer v Lester [1962] NZLR 485, considered
Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166, considered
O'Sullivan v Bastion (No 2) [1948] SASR 17, considered
R v Drew [1999] CrimLR…

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 Maroney

Details

AGLC: R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310
Case: [2000] QCA 310
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Maroney involves the appellant, who was serving time in a correctional institution, and was indicted for the unlawful supply of a dangerous drug to himself within the institution. The appellant had arranged for two other persons to supply the drug to him. The appellant challenged the indictment on the basis that it did not disclose an offence, arguing that the provisions for complicity did not apply to the counselled supply. The primary issue before the court was whether the statutory provisions for complicity were inapplicable in the context of a bilateral transaction where the appellant was both the instigator and the recipient of the supply.

The court considered the legal principles governing accessorial liability under the Criminal Code and the Drugs Misuse Act. It concluded that the statutory provisions for complicity were not limited to unilateral transactions but could apply to bilateral transactions as well. The court found that the appellant's actions in arranging for the supply of the drug to himself within the institution constituted an offence under the statute. Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. Additionally, the court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence, noting the appellant's substantial criminal history and lack of remorse, as well as the serious nature of introducing an unlawful drug into a correctional institution.

The final orders of the court were the dismissal of the appeal against the conviction and the refusal of the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence. The court did not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive and did not see the need for a fresh recommendation for parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Application for extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310

Most Recent Citation

Renwick v Bell [2001] QCA 316

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Renwick v Bell
[2001] QCA 316

…on Society Limited v The Grain Sorghum Marketing Board [1963] QWN 3, considered R v Cook, Hartigan and McCart [1995] 2 QdR 77, considered R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310, applied Simms v West (1962) 107 CLR 157, referred to Snow v Cooper (1944) 57 WALR 92, considered West v Perrier; ex parte Perrier [1962] QWN 5, cons…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

R v McCormick; ex parte
[1999] QCA 354 Para 1

…; ex parte Attorney-General .[12] The learned sentencing judge made no recommendation and, in my view, that was appropriate in the circumstances. [12][1999] QCA 354, 27 August 1999.…
Giorgianni v the Queen
[1985] HCA 29

…red Ellis v Guerin [1925] SASR 282, considered Jenks v Turpin (1884) 13 QBD 505, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, considered Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, considered McAteer v Lester [1962] NZLR 485, considered Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166, considered O'Sullivan v Bastion (No 2) [1948] SASR 17, conside…
R v Australian Industrial Court; Ex parte CLM Holdings Pty Ltd
[1977] HCA 6 Para 1

…fence[18]. [16] Giorgianni above at 491. [17][1962] NZLR 485. [18] The Queen v Australian Industrial Court; ex parte CLM Holdings Proprietary Limited (1976) 136 CLR 235.…
Mallan v Lee
[1949] HCA 48

…) 13 QBD 505, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, considered Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, considered McAteer v Lester [1962] NZLR 485, considered Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166, considered O'Sullivan v Bastion (No 2) [1948] SASR 17, considered R v Drew [1999] CrimLR 581, considered R v Greyeyes…
[1977] QB 868
[1977] QB 868 Para 1

…ends to offences against young boys and mentally handicapped persons. I do not think it applies here. [4] R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710; R v Whitehouse [1977] QB 868.…
R v Saunders
75 ER 706 Para 1

…cent" agent. See Sir Samuel Griffith's note (3) to cl 8 (as it was) of the Draft Criminal Code 1897; and cf R v Saunders & Archer (1578) Plowden 473; 75 ER 706, which is the famous old common law illustration of a case of that kind.…
[1894] 1 QB 710
[1894] 1 QB 710 Para 1

…4] although it probably also extends to offences against young boys and mentally handicapped persons. I do not think it applies here. [4] R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710; R v Whitehouse [1977] QB 868.…
[1923] 1 KB 166
[1923] 1 KB 166 Para 1

…] NZLR 485. Or where the penalty to be imposed on the offender is calculated by reference to an amount previously paid by him or her: Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166 at 170.…
Jenks v Turpin
(1884) 13 QBD 505 Para 1

…baccarat players at an illegal gaming establishment do not assist in conducting the establishment though they may add to its profits: Jenks v Turpin (1884) 13 QBD 505 at 526. [8]As where the offence creating provision imposes an onus on the defendant to prove facts which would be within the knowledge of the princip…
[1962] NZLR 485
[1962] NZLR 485 Para 1

…e facts which would be within the knowledge of the principal offender but might not be within the knowledge of a secondary offender: McAteer v Lester [1962] NZLR 485. Or where the penalty to be imposed on the offender is calculated by reference to an amount previously paid by him or her: Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 K…
The Queen v Coney
(1882) 8 QBD 534

…nd abettors are those who take some active steps by word or action with intent to instigate the principals (see per Hawkins J in R v Coney and Others (1882) 8 QBD 534 at p 557), that is, they are people other than the actual combatants, or, in this case, the parties to the sale."[21]…
Reg v Tyrrell
(1894) 1 QB 710

…ting may be excluded by the nature of the substantive offence or the general tenor or policy of the provisions by which it is created: cf R v Tyrrell (1894) 1 QB 710; Morris v Tolman (1923) 1 KB 166; Ellis v Guerin (1925) SASR 282."…
Morris v Tolman
(1923) 1 KB 166

…e of the substantive offence or the general tenor or policy of the provisions by which it is created: cf R v Tyrrell (1894) 1 QB 710; Morris v Tolman (1923) 1 KB 166; Ellis v Guerin (1925) SASR 282."…
[1997] 2 SCR 825
[1997] 2 SCR 825 Para 1

…the wider general proposition stated in that case that a buyer cannot be said to aid and abet a seller was too widely stated. And as in R v Greyeyes [1997] 2 SCR 825 where, because the definition of trafficking in the Narcotics Control Act (Canada) included all dealing except purchase and there were specific provi…
[1916] 1 KB 218
[1916] 1 KB 218 Para 1

…therefore several distinct bases upon which his Honour held that the buyer could not be convicted as a secondary offender. [22](1874) 5 AJR 124. [23][1916] 1 KB 218.…
[1997] QB 868
[1997] QB 868

…205 of 1999, 27 August 1999, applied R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710, considered R v Whitehouse [1997] QB 868, considered Sayce v Coupe [1953] QB 1, considered Scott v Killian (1985) 40 SASR 37, considered COUNSEL: P J Callaghan for applicant/appellant as amicus curiae L J Clare for the respondent SOLICITORS: Applic…
[1953] QB 1
[1953] QB 1

…Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710, considered R v Whitehouse [1997] QB 868, considered Sayce v Coupe [1953] QB 1, considered Scott v Killian (1985) 40 SASR 37, considered COUNSEL: P J Callaghan for applicant/appellant as amicus curiae L J Clare for the respondent SOLICITORS: Applicant/appellant appeared on his own beha…
[1953] 1 QB 1
[1953] 1 QB 1

…[25][1953] 1 QB 1.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
4, 9 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)
54 2 mentions
Health Act 1937 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
157(3) 1 mention
Sunday Observance Act 1677 (UK)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Maroney [2000] QCA 310
PARTIES:	R v MARONEY, Paul Steven (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 20 of 2000 CA No 172 of 2000 SC No 438 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 July 2000
JUDGES:	Davies, McPherson and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Davies and McPherson JJA concurring as to the orders made, Thomas JA dissenting.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Application for extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – ANCILLARY LIABILITY – COMPLICITY – STATUTORY PROVISIONS – AIDING, ABETTING, COUNSELLING OR PROCURING – the appellant was indicted for the unlawful supply of a dangerous drug to another who was within a correctional institution – appellant was in prison at time of offence and arranged for two other persons to supply the drug to the appellant – effectively the appellant was charged with supplying a drug to himself – the appellant demurred to the indictment on the ground that it did not disclose an offence – demurrer was overruled and appellant was found guilty of supply contrary to s 6 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) – consideration of the competing principles as to when accessorial liability under s 7 Criminal Code (Qld) will be excluded for prohibited bilateral transactions – whether the complicity provisions were inapplicable for the counselled supply CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – application for extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where no satisfactory explanation given for delay – where appellant had substantial criminal history and no remorse was shown – where the introduction of an unlawful drug into a correctional institution undermines prison discipline – whether a fresh recommendation for parole was necessary – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1), s 7(2), s 7(3), s 7(4), s 598 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 4, s 5, s 6, s 8, s 9 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 157(3) Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 54 Blackmore v Linton [1961] VR 374, considered Ellis v Guerin [1925] SASR 282, considered Jenks v Turpin (1884) 13 QBD 505, considered Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473, considered Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198, considered McAteer v Lester [1962] NZLR 485, considered Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166, considered O'Sullivan v Bastion (No 2) [1948] SASR 17, considered R v Drew [1999] CrimLR…