R. Gray for Crown Jeffreys & Asociates for Appellant
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against conviction - offence of supply prohibited drug.; CRIMINAL LAW - directions to jury - sufficiency of directions in relation to possession - sufficiency of directions concerning evidence of appellant - whether trial judge erred in directions given concerning extent to which Crown can rely on inferential and indirect evidence.; CRIMINAL LAW - verdicts - whether verdict unreasonable or not supported having regard to the evidence, within s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Appeal dismissed;; Conviction and sentence confirmed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60348/98
WOOD CJ at CL HIDDEN J SMART AJ
FRIDAY 30 APRIL 1999
REGINA v GARY FREDERICK TROTTER
The appellant was convicted of the supply of a prohibited drug under s 25(1) Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 , and sentenced to an eighteen month minimum term of imprisonment, with an additional term of six months. The weight of the prohibited drug exceeded three grams, and on that basis he was charged with its deemed supply (s 29 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act ).
He appealed against the conviction on the following grounds: insufficiency of directions given in relation to the element of possession; insufficiency of directions given in relation to the appellant’s evidence; error in directions given concerning indirect or inferential evidence; and finally, unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.
HELD (dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction and sentence):
Sufficiency of directions on possession - leave refused to argue these grounds The directions were clear and succinct and complied with the case law. Furthermore no objection was taken at trial to the directions. He Kaw Te(1985) 157 CLR 523; Saad (1987) 61 ALJR 243, considered.
It does not follow from the decision in Williams v Douglas , that the trial judge should direct the jury that they had to be satisfied that the appellant had hidden the drugs. Such a direction would have raised an immaterial issue and imposed on the Crown a burden it did not have to accept. Williams v Douglas (1949) 78 CLR 523 at 526-7, considered.
The Crown did not seek to rely on joint possession in this case. It was therefore necessary for it to exclude, as a reasonable possibility, possession by some other occupant of the flat. In this regard, his Honour made it clear in his directions that the Crown had to prove the appellant’s intention and ability to exercise control and ownership over the drugs “to…
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 Trotter
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Trotter [1999] NSWCCA 90
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 90
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court, the case of the Regina versus Trotter involved the appellant's conviction for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug. The appellant, Trotter, brought forward an appeal against his conviction and sentence, questioning the sufficiency of the trial judge's directions to the jury, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the reasonableness of the jury's verdict. The legal issues at hand were whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the possession of the drug, the extent to which the Crown could rely on inferential and indirect evidence, and whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury, focusing on whether they were sufficient for the jury to understand the elements of the offence of possession and the requirements for establishing possession beyond reasonable doubt. It was determined that the judge had given appropriate directions that allowed the jury to consider the evidence and make an informed decision. The court also assessed the admissibility of the evidence presented by the Crown, which included inferential and indirect evidence, and found that the trial judge had properly instructed the jury on how to evaluate such evidence. Finally, the court considered whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, applying the standard set out in section 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the verdict was reasonable and adequately supported by the evidence presented.
The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal. The court found that the trial judge had provided sufficient directions to the jury, the Crown's evidence was admissible, and the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were maintained.