R v Russell

[1996] QCA 248

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 248
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 157 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Russell]

THE QUEEN

v.

STUART BARRY RUSSELL

Appellant

Fitzgerald P.
Davies J.A.

Ambrose J.

Judgment delivered 26/07/1996

Judgment of the Court.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL - Possession of a dangerous drug, cannabis sativa - cannabis and cannabis seeds found by police in car belonging to appellant - s.57(c) Drugs Misuse Act 1986.
Counsel:	Appellant appeared on own behalf Mr. M. J. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Appellant appeared on own behalf Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing Date:	16 July 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered the 26th day of July 1996

The appellant was convicted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 3 April last of
possession of a dangerous drug namely cannabis sativa. He now appeals against that conviction.
The case against the appellant was that a search of the appellant's car by police in the
early hours of 17 January last revealed cannabis and cannabis seeds. The prosecution then relied
on s.57(c) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 which made that conclusive evidence that the drug was
in the appellant's possession unless the appellant showed that he then neither knew nor had
reason to suspect that the drug was in his car. The appellant gave evidence in his defence but

failed to satisfy the Magistrate that he neither knew nor had reason to suspect that the drug was

in his car.

At about 1.10 a.m. on the morning in question the appellant and a companion were seen by police to be seated in the appellant's car in Toowong Cemetery, the appellant being seated in the driver's seat. The appellant told the police that the vehicle belonged to him and that he owned everything in it with the exception of his companion's jacket. A Marlborough cigarette packet was found on the back seat of the car. In it was a clip seal bag containing cannabis seeds. When asked whether the packet was his he said it was not, that he had just come down from the coast and picked up a hitchhiker and that it must be hers. Under the passenger front seat the police found a plastic clip seal bag containing approximately 25.7 gms. of cannabis. When asked who owned it the appellant accused the police officer of putting it there. He did not persist in that accusation at the trial. In a compartment in the driver's door police found an aluminium foil containing cannabis. The appellant again denied it was his and said he had never seen it. On a shelf below the steering wheel next to the appellant's wallet the police found another aluminium foil containing cannabis. He said this was not his either and that he had simply tossed his wallet into that area without looking.

When he gave evidence the appellant gave no better explanation of the presence of cannabis in his car. He said that when he bought the car shortly before Christmas it had a lot of rubbish in it and that he had not cleaned it out; the inference being that the cannabis had belonged to its previous owner.

In his submissions to this Court the appellant referred to some inconsistencies between the evidence of the two police officers present at the time the search was conducted. The learned Magistrate adverted to these but said that they were not such as to cause him to have any doubts as to the veracity of either of them. On the other hand he found the appellant not to be a convincing witness and that his explanation for the presence of marijuana in his car was inherently improbable.

None of the appellant's explanations for the presence of marijuana in his car was a credible one and consequently the Magistrate was in our view entitled to conclude, as he did, that the appellant had not shown that he did not know and had no reason to suspect its presence.

There is no substance in this appeal and it should be dismissed.