R v Parker - [2006] QSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Parker [2006] QSC 109

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)
v
KEVIN JAMES PARKER
(applicant)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 804/05

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Pre-Trial Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

17 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 May 2006

JUDGE:

Mackenzie J

ORDER:

Pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899, it is ruled that:
1.          Count 3 is properly joined with counts 1 and 2;

2.          There is no reason to sever the indictment by granting a separate trial of count 3;

3.          There are no grounds for quashing the indictment under s 596;

4.          The evidence of the proposed witness Sergeant Feeney as to the meaning of “Charlie” is admissible;

5.          There is no reason to exclude the document containing the word “Charlie” or evidence of Sgt Feeney on discretionary grounds;

6.          I decline to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the “tick list” in the absence of sufficient context of the kind referred to in paragraphs [15] - [19] in which to make a ruling;

7.          That the document referring to bags and amounts of money be excluded from evidence in the exercise of the discretion to exclude evidence the prejudicial value of which outweighs its probative value.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER OF COUNTS – where counts 1 and 2 relate to possession of cocaine and possession of things used in connection with possessing cocaine – where cocaine is a schedule 1 drug pursuant to Drugs Misuse Act - where count 3 relates to possession of prasterone, a schedule 2A drug pursuant to Drugs Misuse Act – where all drugs and other items found on same applicant’s premises within a short time frame – where applicant submitted that the joinder could not be justified by s 567 of Criminal Code because counts 1 and 3 relate to different categories of drugs – whether counts are properly joined – whether inclusion of count 3 on indictment was calculated to prejudice or embarrass the applicant in his defence to the charge

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where Crown seeking to lead evidence of experienced police officer to establish that the word “Charlie” is used as a synonym for the drug cocaine – where Crown also seeking to lead evidence of police officer to prove that certain lists and hand written documents found at the applicant’s premises are documents relating to the sale of drugs – whether documents found at premises are admissible – whether evidence of police officer is admissible

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s567
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

Festa v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 394
Max Cooper & Sons Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council (1980) 29 ALR 77
R v Jacobs (1998) Qd R 96

COUNSEL:

N Macgroarty for the applicant
M Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nyst Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2006] QSC 109
Case: [2006] QSC 109
Decision Date: 17 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Parker, the defendant was charged with possession of cocaine, possession of items used in connection with possessing cocaine, and possession of prasterone. The case was heard in a court that was required to decide on the joinder of counts, the admissibility of evidence, and whether any of the counts should be severed or the indictment quashed. The primary issue was whether count 3, which related to possession of prasterone, could be properly joined with counts 1 and 2 which related to possession of cocaine and possession of items used in connection with possessing cocaine. The court also had to consider the admissibility of evidence regarding the word "Charlie" as a synonym for cocaine, and the admissibility of documents and handwritten notes found at the defendant's premises that the Crown claimed were related to the sale of drugs.

The court found that the counts were properly joined as they were all related to drug possession and were found on the defendant's premises within a short time frame. The court also found that there were no grounds to sever count 3 or to quash the indictment. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court ruled that the evidence of the proposed witness, Sergeant Feeney, regarding the meaning of "Charlie" was admissible. The court also found that there was no reason to exclude the document containing the word "Charlie" or the evidence of Sergeant Feeney on discretionary grounds. However, the court declined to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the "tick list" in the absence of sufficient context. Finally, the court ruled that the document referring to bags and amounts of money should be excluded from evidence as its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value.

In summary, the court ruled that count 3 was properly joined with counts 1 and 2, and there were no grounds to sever the indictment or to quash it. The court also ruled that the evidence of Sergeant Feeney was admissible, and there were no grounds to exclude the document containing the word "Charlie" or evidence of Sergeant Feeney. The court declined to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the "tick list" and excluded the document referring to bags and amounts of money from evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899, it is ruled that:

1. Count 3 is properly joined with counts 1 and 2;

2. There is no reason to sever the indictment by granting a separate trial of count 3;

3. There are no grounds for quashing the indictment under s 596;

4. The evidence of the proposed witness Sergeant Feeney as to the meaning of “Charlie” is admissible;

5. There is no reason to exclude the document containing the word “Charlie” or evidence of Sgt Feeney on discretionary grounds;

6. I decline to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the “tick list” in the absence of sufficient context of the kind referred to in paragraphs [15] - [19] in which to make a ruling;

7. That the document referring to bags and amounts of money be excluded from evidence in the exercise of the discretion to exclude evidence the prejudicial value of which outweighs its probative value.

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 Parker [2006] QSC 109
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent) v KEVIN JAMES PARKER (applicant)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 804/05
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Pre-Trial Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	17 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 May 2006
JUDGE:	Mackenzie J
ORDER:	Pursuant to s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899, it is ruled that: 1. Count 3 is properly joined with counts 1 and 2; 2. There is no reason to sever the indictment by granting a separate trial of count 3; 3. There are no grounds for quashing the indictment under s 596; 4. The evidence of the proposed witness Sergeant Feeney as to the meaning of “Charlie” is admissible; 5. There is no reason to exclude the document containing the word “Charlie” or evidence of Sgt Feeney on discretionary grounds; 6. I decline to rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the “tick list” in the absence of sufficient context of the kind referred to in paragraphs [15] - [19] in which to make a ruling; 7. That the document referring to bags and amounts of money be excluded from evidence in the exercise of the discretion to exclude evidence the prejudicial value of which outweighs its probative value.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – JOINDER OF COUNTS – where counts 1 and 2 relate to possession of cocaine and possession of things used in connection with possessing cocaine – where cocaine is a schedule 1 drug pursuant to Drugs Misuse Act - where count 3 relates to possession of prasterone, a schedule 2A drug pursuant to Drugs Misuse Act – where all drugs and other items found on same applicant’s premises within a short time frame – where applicant submitted that the joinder could not be justified by s 567 of Criminal Code because counts 1 and 3 relate to different categories of drugs – whether counts are properly joined – whether inclusion of count 3 on indictment was calculated to prejudice or embarrass the applicant in his defence to the charge CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – where Crown seeking to lead evidence of experienced police officer to establish that the word “Charlie” is used as a synonym for the drug cocaine – where Crown also seeking to lead evidence of police officer to prove that certain lists and hand written documents found at the applicant’s premises are documents relating to the sale of drugs – whether documents found at premises are admissible – whether evidence of police officer is admissible Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s567 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) Festa v The Queen (2001) 185 ALR 394 Max Cooper & Sons Pty Ltd v Sydney City Council (1980) 29 ALR 77 R v Jacobs (1998) Qd R 96
COUNSEL:	N Macgroarty for the applicant M Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Nyst Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions…