R v Matthews; R v Williams - [2004] NSWCCA 259

CITATION: R v Matthews; R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 259

HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Sperling J at 81; Bergin J at 83

DECISION: In each case, appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: jointly committed offences - supply of not less than the commercial quantity of cannabis leaf - supply of not less than the traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine - whether each of the appellants knew of the existence of cannabis in the trailer - directions to jury as to appellants' knowledge of the cannabis - direction to jury on tendency or coincidence reasoning - direction to the jury concerning possession - unreasonable verdicts

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s47A
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 s25, s29,
Evidence Act 1995 s97, s98

CASES CITED: He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
KRM v The Queen [2001] HCA 11; 206 CLR 221
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Anderson (unreported) NSWCCA, 15 December 1983
R v Bazley (unreported) NSWCCA, 23 March 1989
R v Burns (unreported), NSWCCA, 19 August 1988
R v Duong [2003] NSWCCA 55, unreported, 10 March 2003
R v Filippetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335
The Queen v Myall (1986) 43 SASR 258

PARTIES :
Crown - Respondent
Rodney James Matthews - Appellant
Sahrita May Williams - Appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60409/03; 60408/03

COUNSEL: D Woodburne - Crown
P Boulten SC - Appellants

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
J Bettens - Appellants

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/11/0678; 02/11/0677

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington ADCJ

60409/03
60408/03

SIMPSON J
SPERLING J
BERGIN J
Wednesday 4 August 2004

REGINA v Rodney James MATTHEWS

REGINA v Sahrita May WILLIAMS

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: On 5 March 2003, following a six-day trial by jury in the District Court, both appellants were convicted on an indictment which alleged, against each appellant, two offences against the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (“the Act”). The first charge against each was one of supply of not less than the commercial quantity of cannabis leaf (s25(2) of the Act). The second was of supply of not less than the traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine (s25(1) of the Act).

2 In relation to all charges the Crown relied upon the provisions of s29 of the Act, pursuant to which a person in possession of not less than the traffickable quantity of a drug is deemed to have the drug in possession for supply in the absence of proof by that person that it was for some other purpose.

3 Each appellant now appeals against the conviction in relation to the supply of cannabis leaf. Neither appeals against the conviction in relation to the methylamphetamine.

the Crown case

4 On the Crown case the offences were committed jointly by the appellants on 30 March 2001, at Hay in NSW. The Crown case was that, in the early hours of that day, a police…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Matthews; R v Williams and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWCCA 259
Decision Date: 4 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Matthews and Williams, were convicted of jointly committing offences involving the supply of a commercial quantity of cannabis and the supply of a traffickable quantity of methylamphetamine. The central dispute centred on whether both appellants were aware of the presence of cannabis in the trailer, and whether certain directions given to the jury regarding their knowledge of the cannabis, tendency or coincidence reasoning, and possession were appropriate. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that arose in this case pertained to the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the appellants' knowledge of the cannabis, the use of tendency or coincidence reasoning, and the concept of possession. The appellants argued that the trial judge's directions were flawed and led to unreasonable verdicts. They submitted that the directions did not properly address the complexities of joint criminal enterprises and the burden of proving knowledge of the contraband.

The High Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate and did not result in unreasonable verdicts. The court held that the directions appropriately balanced the principles of joint criminal enterprise and the need to prove knowledge of the contraband. The court also found that the tendency or coincidence reasoning and the possession instructions were correctly given. The High Court concluded that the jury was properly directed and the verdicts were not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

No additional orders were made by the court. The convictions of Matthews and Williams were upheld.

Orders