R v Martin - [2003] VSCA 80

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 115 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
LINDSAY PETER MARTIN

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BUCHANAN and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 80

---

Criminal Law – Conviction – Trafficking in not less than a commercial quantity of ecstasy contrary to s.71(1) of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 – Applicant convicted on evidence of accomplice – Whether trial judge’s directions regarding acceptance of accomplice’s evidence disclosed error – Identified categories of witnesses accepted as potentially unreliable or untrustworthy – Ample evidence before jury to support finding that applicant and accomplice were associated – Whether trial judge erred in making distinction between corroborated and circumstantial evidence – Whether verdict unsafe – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

For the Appellant

Mr J.R. Champion

Mr G.J. Thomas

K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

Victoria Legal Aid

CHARLES, J.A.:

Having had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Vincent, J.A., I agree that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons given by his Honour.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

I agree with Vincent, J.A.

VINCENT, J.A.:

The Background
Version of events given by G

According to evidence given by him at the trial of the applicant, between September 1998 and June 1999, a man to whom I will refer as G, was involved in arrangements concerned with four large importations into Australia of a drug known as ecstasy. The first of these importations, consisting of about 7,000 to 10,000 ecstasy tablets, was received by G, on or about 18 September 1998, and subsequently sold through local distributors. A substantial proportion of the proceeds was remitted to bank accounts at the direction of his supplier, to whom I will refer as L or D as appropriate, with the balance presumably being retained by G as his share.

A second consignment of 15,000 to 20,000 ecstasy tablets was received by G, on around 17 November 1998. Most of them were sold through a dealer, to whom I will refer as K. However, K was arrested by Victoria Police at Williamstown, on 28 December 1998. He had in his possession, at the time of his arrest, a substantial quantity of ecstasy tablets from the shipment and $68,000 which represented the proceeds of the sale of other tablets that G had supplied to him on credit. The seizure of this money and the drugs created a substantial problem for G who, at that

stage, owed $168,000 to his supplier. In order to repay this amount, G agreed to participate in a third importation. The arrest of K also meant that G needed to find a new distributor.

It was against that background that he attended a festival at Lake Eildon on New Year's Eve 1998 and following days. He there encountered the applicant, who he had known for a number of years. During their conversations, G stated that…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2003] VSCA 80
Case: [2003] VSCA 80
Decision Date: 20 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Martin, the applicant was convicted of trafficking in a commercial quantity of ecstasy in contravention of section 71(1) of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. The conviction was based on the evidence provided by an accomplice. The applicant contested the conviction, claiming that the trial judge's directions regarding the acceptance of the accomplice's evidence contained an error. The crux of the appeal was whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the reliability and trustworthiness of the accomplice's testimony.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly instructed the jury about the categories of witnesses that may be considered unreliable or untrustworthy. It was also necessary to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the applicant was associated with the accomplice. Furthermore, the court examined if the trial judge erred by distinguishing between corroborated and circumstantial evidence, and whether this distinction led to an unsafe verdict. The court found that the trial judge's directions were appropriate and that the evidence was ample for the jury to make the necessary findings.

After reviewing the trial judge's directions and the evidence presented, the court concluded that there was no error in the judge's instructions or in the jury's findings. The court held that the accomplice's testimony, while potentially unreliable, was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence to support the applicant's conviction. The distinction between corroborated and circumstantial evidence did not impact the safety of the verdict. Consequently, the application for appeal was dismissed.

Orders