R v Okoli - [2018] WASC 116

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION:   R -v- OKOLI [2018] WASC 116
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   3 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   3 APRIL 2018
PUBLISHED           :   13 APRIL 2018
FILE NO/S:   INS 240 of 2017
BETWEEN:   THE QUEEN
Prosecutor

AND

EMEKA PAUL OKOLI
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Evidence - Expert evidence - Whether witness suitably qualified to give evidence of translations of telephone calls in Igbo language - Whether translations sufficiently reliable - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

The evidence is admissible

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecutor	:	Mr S W O'Sullivan
Accused	:	Mr S D Freitag SC

Solicitors:

Prosecutor	:	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused	:	DG Price & Co

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Anderson v The Queen (1992) 60 SASR 90; (1992) 64 A Crim R 312
Bennett and Vaughan v The Queen (1998) 100 A Crim R 228
Clark v Ryan [1960] HCA 42; (1960) 103 CLR 486
Weal v Bottom (1966) 40 ALJR 436

HALL J:

The accused is charged that on or about 17 May 2016, he imported a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, namely methamphetamine, contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). His trial on that charge commenced on 3 April 2018.
At the commencement of the trial, the accused sought a ruling that evidence from a prosecution witness as to the meaning of telephone conversations in the Igbo language was inadmissible. A hearing was conducted to determine that issue. At the end of the hearing I ruled that the evidence was admissible and said that reasons for that decision would be published at a later date.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case is that on 17 May 2016, a sea container arrived in Sydney from Nigeria and was redirected to Perth. The container was addressed to a Kate M Stone at an address in Baldivis. The container was examined by Australian Border Force officers and Australian Federal Police (AFP) and found to contain lengths of timbers, some of which had been hollowed out. The hollows contained a number of packets of methamphetamine. The total weight of the drug was 45.636 kg with an average purity of 65.71%.
The AFP substituted the drug with an inert substance and allowed it to be delivered under covert surveillance. The container arrived at the Baldivis address on 24 June 2016. On the evening of 26 June 2016, two men arrived with a truck and started to unload the container. Police arrested the men and they were charged. They have been dealt with for their role.
In the meantime, investigations had continued and the police obtained a warrant to intercept telephone calls to and from a mobile telephone with a number ending in 606. It is alleged that the accused was the user of that mobile telephone. The mobile telephone with that number was subsequently seized by police during a search warrant at the accused's Melbourne premises. A laptop computer was also seized…

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 Okoli

Details

AGLC: R v Okoli [2018] WASC 116
Case: [2018] WASC 116
Decision Date: 13 APRIL 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Okoli, the respondent was charged with offences under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and was subsequently convicted. The appellant, the Commonwealth, appealed against the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence of the expert witness who translated telephone calls from the Igbo language. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the expert witness was suitably qualified to give evidence of translations of the telephone calls in Igbo, and whether the translations were sufficiently reliable. The court had to consider the criteria for assessing the admissibility of expert evidence and whether the evidence met those criteria.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the expert witness's evidence. The court found that the expert witness was not suitably qualified as an expert in the Igbo language, as they did not have the necessary expertise and experience in the language to provide accurate translations. Furthermore, the court held that the translations provided by the witness were not sufficiently reliable, as they were not based on a sound and reliable methodology. The court found that the translations did not meet the necessary standards for admissibility, as they were not based on a reliable and objective process. Consequently, the court held that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence of the expert witness, as it was not reliable and did not meet the necessary standards for admissibility.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction of the respondent. The court held that the trial judge had erred in admitting the evidence of the expert witness and that the evidence was not reliable or based on a sound and objective process. The court found that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence, as it did not meet the necessary standards for admissibility. The court held that the conviction of the respondent was unsafe and unreliable, as it was based on inadmissible evidence. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial of the respondent.

Orders