R v Simpson - [2023] QSCPR 13

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Simpson [2023] QSCPR 13

PARTIES:
R

(respondent)
v
JARRYD KENNETH SIMPSON
(applicant)

FILENO/S: Indictment No. 196 of 2021

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application (s 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code)

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVEREDON: 13 July 2023

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 11 and 12 July 2023

JUDGE: Brown J

ORDER:
1. There is no implied prohibition in s 1 of the Criminal Code such that the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon as particulars for the offence cannot be relied on as the particulars of the circumstance of aggravation.

2. The Crown is not precluded as a matter of law under s

1 of the Criminal Code, from establishing a circumstance of aggravation under s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when the particulars rely upon facts relied upon to particularise the offence of trafficking contrary to s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – PROCEDURE – AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES – where the applicant was charged with trafficking of dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs – where in relation to the trafficking charge, the applicant was charged with a circumstance of aggravation – whether there is an implied prohibition in s 1 of the Criminal Code such that the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon for the offence cannot be relied on as the circumstance of aggravation

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – PROCEDURE – AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES – whether, if there is no implied prohibition under s 1 of the Criminal Code, the Crown is precluded as a matter of law under s 1 of the Criminal Code from establishing a circumstance of aggravation under s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when the particulars rely upon facts relied upon to particularise the offence of trafficking contrary to s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)

Criminal Code (WA)
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

R v Ellis [2002] QCA 402

R v Hill [2020] QSC 309
R v Hilton [2020] QSCPR 2
R v KAR [2019] 2 Qd R 370
R v GBE [2018] QCA 345
R v Mead [2010] QCA 370
R v PBI [2022] QCA 170
R v S [2000] 1 Qd R 445
R v Stasiak and Turkyilmaz (2019) 2 QR 533
R v WAY; ex parte Attorney-General [2013] QCA 398

COUNSEL:

M McCarthy for the applicant Z Kaplan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

AW Bale & Son for the applicant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

The applicant, Mr Jarryd Kenneth Simpson, was charged with trafficking of dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs. In relation to the trafficking charge, the applicant was charged with a circumstance of aggravation. Count 1 of the…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2023] QSCPR 13
Case: [2023] QSCPR 13
Decision Date: 13 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Simpson involved the applicant who was charged with trafficking of dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs. The applicant was also charged with a circumstance of aggravation in relation to the trafficking charge. The dispute centred on whether there was an implied prohibition in section 1 of the Criminal Code that would prevent the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon for the offence from also being relied upon as the circumstance of aggravation.

The legal issue the court had to decide was whether section 1 of the Criminal Code contained an implied prohibition that would preclude the same facts from being used to establish both the offence and the aggravating circumstance. The court was required to determine if the Crown could rely on the same facts to establish both the offence and the aggravating circumstance, or if there was a legal barrier preventing this.

The court ruled that there was no implied prohibition in section 1 of the Criminal Code that would prevent the same facts from being used to establish both the offence and the aggravating circumstance. The court found that the Crown was not precluded by law from establishing a circumstance of aggravation under section 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when the particulars relied upon the same facts as those relied upon to particularise the offence of trafficking under section 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The court's reasoning was that there was no legal impediment to the Crown using the same facts to establish both the offence and the aggravating circumstance, as long as the requirements of each provision were satisfied. The outcome was that the Crown could proceed with the charges as particularised.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. There is no implied prohibition in s 1 of the Criminal Code such that the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon as particulars for the offence cannot be relied on as the particulars of the circumstance of aggravation.

2. The Crown is not precluded as a matter of law under s

1 of the Criminal Code, from establishing a circumstance of aggravation under s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when the particulars rely upon facts relied upon to particularise the offence of trafficking contrary to s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).

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 Simpson [2023] QSCPR 13
PARTIES:	R (respondent) v JARRYD KENNETH SIMPSON (applicant)
FILENO/S:	Indictment No. 196 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application (s 590AA(2)(e) of the Criminal Code)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVEREDON:	13 July 2023
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	11 and 12 July 2023
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	1. There is no implied prohibition in s 1 of the Criminal Code such that the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon as particulars for the offence cannot be relied on as the particulars of the circumstance of aggravation. 2. The Crown is not precluded as a matter of law under s 1 of the Criminal Code, from establishing a circumstance of aggravation under s 161Q of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when the particulars rely upon facts relied upon to particularise the offence of trafficking contrary to s 5 of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – PROCEDURE – AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES – where the applicant was charged with trafficking of dangerous drugs and possession of dangerous drugs – where in relation to the trafficking charge, the applicant was charged with a circumstance of aggravation – whether there is an implied prohibition in s 1 of the Criminal Code such that the same acts, omissions, or circumstances relied upon for the offence cannot be relied on as the circumstance of aggravation CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – PROCEDURE – AGGRAVATING