R v Morris - [2021] QCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Morris [2021] QCA 221

PARTIES:

R
v
MORRIS, Lewis David George
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 297 of 2020
SC No 364 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 10 December 2020 (Williams J)

DELIVERED ON:

15 October 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 September 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Mullins and Bond JJA

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL GRANTED – VERDICT UNREASONABLE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, cocaine – where the appellant appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where the evidence before the jury came from a series of formal admissions and a single police witness – where the case was wholly circumstantial – where the Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the user of certain mobile numbers from which a series of drug-related communications were found – whether the jury would have apprehended a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the user of those mobile numbers and was carrying on the business of trafficking

R v Dalton (2020) 3 QR 273; [2020] QCA 13, cited
R v Oliver[2020] QCA 76, cited
R v Richards[2017] QCA 299, cited
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the appellant
P J McCarthy QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons and order proposed by Bond JA.
MULLINS JA: I agree with Bond JA.
BOND JA: The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, cocaine, between 2 March 2018 and 16 July 2018. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, wholly suspended for a period of 5 years.
He appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. The principles of law governing the disposition of such an appeal are not in doubt: see the summary in R v Dalton (2020) 3 QR 273 at 305-307 [173] to [181].
The evidence before the jury came from a series of formal admissions recorded in exhibit 2, which was supplemented in very minor respects by the evidence obtained from a single police witness. The appellant did not give or call evidence.
The essence of the Crown case was…

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 Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Morris [2021] QCA 221
Case: [2021] QCA 221
Decision Date: 15 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morris, the appellant, Morris, appealed against his conviction for unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, cocaine. The appeal was based on the sole ground that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented. The conviction arose from a jury trial, where the evidence came from a series of formal admissions and a single police witness. The case was entirely circumstantial, requiring the Crown to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Morris was the user of certain mobile numbers linked to drug-related communications.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the jury would have perceived a reasonable doubt that Morris was the user of the specified mobile numbers and engaged in the business of trafficking. Given the nature of the evidence, the court had to evaluate the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence to determine whether the verdict was reasonable. The court assessed whether the jury's decision was so unreasonable that it warranted a new trial.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the jury's verdict, the court determined that the jury would not have apprehended a reasonable doubt regarding Morris's involvement in drug trafficking. The evidence, though circumstantial, was deemed sufficient to support the conviction. The court found that the jury's verdict was reasonable and not against the weight of the evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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 Morris [2021] QCA 221
PARTIES:	R v MORRIS, Lewis David George (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 297 of 2020 SC No 364 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 10 December 2020 (Williams J)
DELIVERED ON:	15 October 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 September 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Mullins and Bond JJA
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL – IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – VERDICT AGAINST WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE – WHEN NEW TRIAL GRANTED – VERDICT UNREASONABLE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, cocaine – where the appellant appeals against his conviction on the sole ground that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – where the evidence before the jury came from a series of formal admissions and a single police witness – where the case was wholly circumstantial – where the Crown was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the user of certain mobile numbers from which a series of drug-related communications were found – whether the jury would have apprehended a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the user of those mobile numbers and was carrying on the business of trafficking R v Dalton (2020) 3 QR 273; [2020] QCA 13, cited R v Oliver[2020] QCA 76, cited R v Richards[2017] QCA 299, cited Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, cited
COUNSEL:	A J Kimmins for the appellant P J McCarthy QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent