R v Thathiah

Case [2012] QCA 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Thathiah [2012] QCA 195

PARTIES:

R
v
THATHIAH, Nageswararao
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 347 of 2011
SC No 302 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 July 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 July 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Fraser and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug (methamphetamine) contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where the issue at trial was whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the bag contained prohibited drugs – where the appellant neither gave nor called evidence – where the case was circumstantial – whether there was some other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence – whether the verdict reached by the jury was unsafe or unsatisfactory or unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug (methamphetamine) contrary to s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) – where the appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and a fixed parole release date – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 307.1(1), s 314.1

Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; [2001] HCA 25, cited
Bridge v The Queen (1964) 118 CLR 600; [1964] HCA 73, considered
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, considered
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44, cited
R v Bala[2000] QCA 436, considered
R v Chai & Lim[1998] QCA 187, considered
R v Dehghani; ex parte DPP (Cth) [2012] 1 Qd R 339; [2011] QCA 159, considered
R v Tran (2007) 172 A Crim R 436; [2007] QCA 221, followed
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56, applied
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, applied
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217; [1993] HCA 65, cited

COUNSEL:

S Hogg for the applicant/appellant
M E Johnson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  The appeal against conviction should be dismissed.…

Continue reading R v Thathiah

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Thathiah [2012] QCA 195
Case
[2012] QCA 195
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Thathiah, the appellant was convicted by a jury of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug, methamphetamine, in contravention of section 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the bag contained prohibited drugs. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory given the evidence, as well as whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary issue before the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsatisfactory, particularly given that the appellant neither gave nor called evidence, and the case was circumstantial. The court assessed whether there was some other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, apart from the appellant's guilt. The court considered whether the evidence was such that no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict it did. In evaluating the verdict, the court noted the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the presence of the drugs, the appellant's behaviour, and the lack of any plausible alternative explanation. The court found that the jury's conclusion was consistent with the evidence and that there was no basis to conclude that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the jury's verdict. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that it was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

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.