R v Rodgers and Dowling

[2003] QCA 99

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rodgers & Dowling [2003] QCA 99

PARTIES:

R
v
RODGERS, William John
(appellant)
DOWLING, Billy Jack
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 179 of 2002
CA No 200 of 2002
SC No 491 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 179 of 2002 (Rodgers), appeal against conviction dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
In CA No 200 of 2002 (Dowling), appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where appellant convicted of unlawful production of a dangerous drug - where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment - where dangerous drug used for commercial purpose - whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - where both appellants convicted of unlawful production of a dangerous drug - whether police evidence was fabricated - whether jury members could decide the case impartially - whether trial judge erred in not allowing appellant to tender letter - where inconsistencies between statements left to the jury’s determination - whether the jury’s verdict was unreasonable

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 56

Applewaite v Jones (1996) 90 ACrimR 167, considered
Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant Rodgers appeared on his own behalf
The appellant Dowling appeared on his own behalf
P D Kelly for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant Rodgers appeared on his own behalf
The appellant Dowling appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. McMURDO P:  Both appellants, together with George Ross, were convicted after a 23 day trial of unlawful production in excess of 500 grams of the dangerous drug cannabis sativa.  Each appellant now appeals against his conviction only on the grounds that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.  The appellant, Rodgers, was sentenced to three years imprisonment and contends the sentence was manifestly excessive.  Rodgers was 62 years old at trial, the father of the 27 year old Dowling and a friend of the 66 year old Ross.

The appeals against conviction

Facts

1. The grounds of appeal make it necessary to review the evidence.  On 23 November 2000, police officers Smith and Graham were patrolling the Pennings area in Benarkin State Forest near Nanango.  They gave evidence that they observed a cleared area to the right hand side of the road and discovered a well-used track, 400-500 metres long, leading from the cleared area towards an old corrugated iron water tank.  About ten metres past the water tank they discovered two plots.  The larger western plot was surrounded by a chicken wire fence and lantana.  It contained…