R v P

[2016] QSC 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v P [2016] QSC 50

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

(respondent)

v
P

(applicant)

FILE NO:

Indictment 596 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Section 590AA application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2015 and 26 February 2016

JUDGE:

Applegarth J

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – PRIMA FACIE CASE TO ANSWER – NO CASE TO ANSWER APPLICATION – where applicant charged with possession of dangerous drugs – where police search of unoccupied vehicle found substantial quantity of drugs – where applicant had previously occupied vehicle – where applicant detained in close proximity to vehicle – where applicant’s behaviour and other evidence supported the inference that he knew of drugs in vehicle – where application required a view of the evidence and inferences most favourable to the prosecution – whether the evidence and inferences, so viewed, capable of supporting a conviction – whether there is a case to answer

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 129(1)(c)

Case Stated by DPP (No 2 of 1993) (1993) 70 A Crim R 323, discussed
Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207, cited
R v P & Anor [2016] QSC 49, cited
R v Sutton [1986] 2 Qd R 72, cited

COUNSEL:

A Boe for the applicant
R A Swanwick for the respondent Crown

SOLICITORS:

Boe Williams Anderson for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

1. P and N are jointly charged that on 11 July 2014 they had unlawful possession of:

   (a)     cocaine in excess of 2.0 grams (Count 2);

   (b)     methylamphetamine in excess of 2.0 grams (Count 3); and

   (c)     heroin in excess of 2.0 grams (Count 4).

   Large quantities of each drug were found by police in a van parked in the front yard of P’s residence.  He was standing in the front yard when police arrived.  His nervous glances at the van aroused police suspicions about drugs being in the van.

2. P separately applies for a stay of Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment, insofar as they relate to him, on the ground that there is no case for him to answer.  The application is made, regardless of the outcome of the evidentiary applications made by him and

   
   

   N.  That application is the subject of a separate ruling by me.[1]

   [1]     R v P & Anor [2016] QSC 49.

3. The basis of the no case submission is that the available evidence is not sufficient to sustain a conviction against the applicant on Counts 2, 3 and 4 because it cannot prove an essential element of the offence.  He submits that the evidence is insufficient to establish his actual or constructive possession of the drugs that were in the van.  The prosecution case is a circumstantial one, and therefore to be convicted his guilt must be the only reasonable inference that can be drawn in the…