R v Regazzoli

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Regazzoli [2000] QCA 326

PARTIES:

R
v
REGAZZOLI, Anthony
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 124 of 2000
SC No 98 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 August 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus and Thomas JJA, Chesterman J.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE – PARTICULAR CASES -
appellant’s fingerprint found on stolen plate near drugs – evidence admitted at trial to link appellant with drugs – whether evidence prejudicial because painted appellant as thief – whether prejudicial effect outweighed probative value – exercise of judicial discretion.

Drugs Misuse Act 1986

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, considered
R v Edelsten (1990) 21 NSWLR 542, applied
R v Gidley (1984) 3 NSWLR 168, considered

R v Merritt & Roso (1985) 19 A Crim R 360, considered

R v Scarfo CA No 487 of 1996, 4 March 1997, considered

Scott v The Queen [1989] 1 AC 1242, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Byrne QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. PINCUS JA:   I agree with Chesterman J.

1. In my opinion the judge's discretion, as to the admission of the evidence discussed by Chesterman J, was correctly exercised.  I would have taken the same view even if there had been no foreshadowed challenge to the evidence that there was a fingerprint of the appellant's on the paper in which the Russian plate was wrapped.  Absent an admission making that course unnecessary, the Crown was entitled to lead the challenged evidence as additional support for its contention that the appellant was connected with the events leading to the presence of the plate on the site.  I agree that the appeal and the application for leave must fail.

1. THOMAS JA:  I agree with the reasons of and orders proposed by Chesterman J.

1. CHESTERMAN J:  After a trial lasting six days the appellant was, on 3 April 2000, convicted of two charges against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986. They were:

1.That between 29 August 1997 and 9 December 1997 at Minden he unlawfully produced cannabis sativa the quantity of which exceeded 500 grams; 

2.That on 16 January 1998 at Grandchester he unlawfully produced cannabis sativa the quantity of which exceeded 500 grams.

On 4 April 2000 the appellant was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. 

1. There is an appeal against the convictions and an application for leave to appeal against the sentences which are said to be excessive. 

1. The appellant, who appeared…