Legal Research
Cases
R v Nolan

R v Nolan

Case [2012] NSWCCA 126 18 June 2012

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nolan [2012] NSWCCA 126
Hearing dates: 29 February 2012
Decision date: 18 June 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Rothman J at [39]
Davies J at [114]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - appeal against acquittal - definition of importation - point at which the process of importation has ended - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Customs Act 1901
Criminal Code (Cth)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act 2005
Cases Cited: Alramadan v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 322
Britten v Albogut (1987) 23 A Crim R 254
Calderwood v R [2007] NSWCCA 180; (2007) 172 A Crim R 208
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384
Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; (2007) 230 CLR 89
Forbes v Traders' Finance Corporation Ltd (1971) 126 CLR 429
Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473 at 480
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
K&S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309
Krishna v DPP [2007] NSWCCA 318
Morgan v Babcock & Wilcox Ltd (1929) 43 CLR 163
Osland v R [1998] HCA 75, (1998) 197 CLR 316
Project Blue Sky v ABA [1998] HCA 28, (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Betts & Ridley (1930) 22 Cr App Rep 148
R v Bull (1974) 131 CLR 203
R v Campbell [2008] NSWCCA 214; (2008) 73 NSWLR 272
R v Courtney-Smith (No 2) (1990) 48 A Crim R 49
R v Dorrey & Gage [1970] 3 NSWLR 351
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v Lam (1990) 46 A Crim R 402
R v Leff (1996) 132 FLR 102; (1996) 86 A Crim R 212
R v Mai (1992) 26 NSWLR 371
R v Onuorah [2009] NSWCCA 238; (2009) 76 NSWLR 1
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
R v Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 54
R v Toe (2010) 106 SASR 203; (2010]) 199 A Crim R 347
Williamson Pty Ltd v Barrowcliff [1915] VLR 450
Wilson v Chambers (1926) 38 CLR 131
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Cth Crown (Appellant)
Shane Lawrence Nolan (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S McNaughton SC (Cth Crown/appellant)
K H Averre (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown/appellant)
Brenda Duchen (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/112326
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-08-29 00:00:00

Before:

Charteris DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/112326

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: Shane Nolan, the respondent, was charged with an offence which was pleaded as follows:

"On about 5 May 2010 at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, did without requisite approval being obtained, intentionally import goods, being…

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 Nolan

Details

AGLC: R v Nolan [2012] NSWCCA 126
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date: 18 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Nolan, the defendant was acquitted by the court of the crime of drug importation. The prosecution appealed this decision to the higher court, arguing that the lower court's interpretation of the term 'importation' was incorrect. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the legal definition of importation and the point at which the process of importation can be said to have ended.

The legal issues before the court were whether the lower court had correctly interpreted the definition of importation and if the appeal against acquittal was valid. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the lower court's interpretation of the point at which the process of importation ended was consistent with the law. The prosecution argued that the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the definition of importation and the point at which the process of importation had ended, leading to the defendant's acquittal.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant legal provisions. It found that the lower court had correctly interpreted the definition of importation and the point at which the process of importation had ended. The court held that the appeal against acquittal was not valid, as the lower court's interpretation of the law was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant's acquittal was upheld. The court's decision clarified the interpretation of the term 'importation' and confirmed the lower court's decision in this matter.

Orders