Legal Research
Cases
R v Ridgeway

R v Ridgeway

Case [1998] SASC 6963 26 November 1998

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

R v RIDGEWAY
[1998] SASC 6963

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Olsson and Lander JJ

DOYLE CJ. The appellant, Mr Ridgeway, was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of the offence of having a prohibited substance, namely heroin, in his possession for the purposes of sale, contrary to s32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (“the CSA”).
He appeals against the conviction and against the sentence imposed.
Two main grounds were argued on appeal. The first is that the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, should have excluded all or most of the evidence led by the prosecutor, inevitably leading to an acquittal. This submission was based upon the fact that unlawful acts committed by officers of a law enforcement authority had preceded, had been an integral part of, and had procured the commission of Mr Ridgeway’s offence. The second ground is that the trial judge should have stayed the proceedings on the ground that their continuance would expose Mr Ridgeway to a form of double jeopardy.
In resisting the former submission, counsel for the prosecutor submitted that any relevant illegality by officers of a law enforcement authority was cured by the provisions of the Criminal Law (Undercover Operations) Act1995 (SA) (“the Undercover Operations Act”).
These issues were argued before the trial judge as issues preliminary to the trial. The trial judge ruled against the submissions for Mr Ridgeway. He also rejected the countering submission by counsel for the prosecution.
On the appeal, counsel for Mr Ridgeway also argued a number of grounds of appeal relating to the conduct of the trial and to the summing up.

Facts

The main issues argued on appeal were the subject of a voir dire hearing before the trial judge on a number of different days. Some evidence was led before him. As well, he had before him the material upon which Mr Ridgeway was committed for trial.
Mr Ridgeway was the accused in Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19. As I understand the position, the trial judge was invited to decide the pre-trial issues upon the basis of the facts set out in the judgment of Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Ridgeway, in particular at 25-27. Apart from the brief oral evidence called before the trial judge, and the material upon which Mr Ridgeway was committed, the trial judge had also before him an affidavit sworn by the solicitor for Mr Ridgeway. Annexed to that was a document setting out certain agreed facts. The oral evidence that the trial judge heard was evidence from two officers of the Australian Federal Police (“the AFP”).
The trial judge appears to have acted upon the basis of the evidence as summarized by Mason CJ, Deane and Dawson JJ in Ridgeway, and so will I. There are some additional relevant facts, and along the way I will refer to them. I will now identify what appear to me to be the important…

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 Ridgeway

Details

AGLC: R v Ridgeway [1998] SASC 6963
Case: [1998] SASC 6963
Decision Date: 26 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ridgeway v The Queen, the appellant, Mr Ridgeway, appealed against his conviction for the offence of possession of heroin for sale and the sentence imposed. The appeal raised issues regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful conduct by law enforcement officers, the application of the principle against double jeopardy, and the severity of the sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of Doyle CJ, Olsson, and Lander JJ, dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in admitting the evidence, that there was no abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the evidence obtained through the controlled importation of heroin was admissible as the appellant had initiated the offence and the law enforcement officers acted in good faith, believing their conduct to be lawful. The court also found that the principle against double jeopardy did not apply as the charges were different and the prosecution had not acted oppressively. Finally, the court upheld the sentence, considering the appellant's extensive criminal history and the calculated nature of the offence.

Orders