R v Mohammadi

Case [2006] QCA 530

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mohammadi [2006] QCA 530

PARTIES:

R
v
MOHAMMADI, Mehdi
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 156 of 2006
SC No 27 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.The appeal against conviction is dismissed 

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused 

CATCHWORDS:

TAXES AND DUTIES – CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – PENAL PROVISIONS – OFFENCES – PROHIBITED IMPORTS – SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO NARCOTIC GOODS – POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED IMPORTS REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN BROUGHT INTO AUSTRALIA IN CONTRAVENTION OF ACT – importation of unlawful drugs – whether Crown need establish drugs came from a foreign land – or whether it suffices to establish passage through international waters – absence of evidence of route followed by vessel – whether further evidence admissible on appeal – inference of knowledge of drugs imported – reliance on s 668E(1A) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) proviso

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B
Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 (Cth), s 7

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E, s 671

Birrell v Dryer (1884) 9 App Cas 345, cited
Brown v United States, 16 F.2d 682 (1926), cited
Darkan v The Queen [2006] HCA 34; (2006) 80 ALJR 1250, cited
Election Importing Co Pty Ltd v Courtice (1949) 80 CLR 657, cited
Forbes v Traders’ Finance Corporation Ltd (1971) 126 CLR 429, cited
McGurk Construction & Rigging Co Ltd v Comptroller-General of Customs (1987) 73 ALR 381, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, cited
R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203, applied
US v Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (2003), considered
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444, applied
Wilson v Chambers & Co Pty Ltd (1926) 38 CLR 131, followed

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the appellant
W J Abraham QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Arthur Browne & Associates for the appellant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ:

Introduction

  1. A Supreme Court jury convicted the appellant on the following count:

“on the eighth day of June 2005 at Townsville in the State of Queensland Mehdi Mohammadi imported goods into Australia, being prohibited imports to which section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, namely narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of methylamphetamine being not less than the commercial quantity applicable to methylamphetamine.”

  1. The appellant had been subject to an alternate count, that on 8 June 2005 at Townsville, he possessed the drugs, which were reasonably suspected of having been imported.  It was not necessary for the jury to return a verdict on that count.

  1. There were two other accused persons, Maio and Labanon.  They were…

Continue reading R v Mohammadi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mohammadi [2006] QCA 530
Case
[2006] QCA 530
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mohammadi involved the respondent, Mohammadi, who was convicted of an offence under section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Mohammadi was found in possession of a quantity of unlawful drugs which were reasonably suspected of having been brought into Australia in contravention of the Act. The legal dispute centred on whether the Crown was required to establish that the drugs originated from a foreign land, or if it was sufficient to prove that the drugs had passed through international waters. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the interpretation of section 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code, specifically whether the Crown needed to demonstrate that the drugs had originated from a foreign land or if it was adequate to establish that the drugs had passed through international waters. Additionally, the court examined whether it was appropriate to admit further evidence on appeal when there was an absence of evidence regarding the route followed by the vessel carrying the drugs. The court also considered whether Mohammadi's knowledge of the importation of the drugs could be inferred under the proviso of section 668E(1A).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction, affirming that the Crown was not obligated to prove the drugs originated from a foreign land, as long as it could be established that the drugs had passed through international waters. The court found that the absence of evidence about the vessel's route did not preclude the conviction. The court also held that additional evidence on appeal was not admissible, and Mohammadi's knowledge of the importation could not be inferred under the proviso of section 668E(1A). Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The appeal against conviction is dismissed

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.