SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Von Snarski [2001] QCA 71 PARTIES: R
v
VON SNARSKI, Randall Barrie
(appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 242 of 2000
SC No 200 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 6 March 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 February 2001 JUDGES: Thomas JA, Wilson J and Douglas J
Judgment of the CourtORDER: Appeal dismissed. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – appellant charged with permitting premises to be used for production of a dangerous drug – s 11 Drugs Misuse Act
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – EFFECT OF PARTICULAR WORDS – KNOWINGLY PERMIT OR SUFFER – whether appellant had sufficient knowledge – whether appellant exercised sufficient control over premises – meaning of 'permitting' and 'occupation'
CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – DIRECTION TO JURY- where evidence capable of proving occupation and knowledge – whether error in directing jury
Criminal Code (Qld), s 668E (1)
Adelaide Corporation v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd (1928) 40 CLR 481, considered
R v Lonie and Groom (1999) NSW CCA 319, distinguished
R v Smythe [1997] 2 Qd R 223, considered
Thow v Campbell [1997] 2 Qd R 324, consideredCOUNSEL: A J Kimmins for the appellant
P M Ridgway for the respondentSOLICITORS: Ryan & Bosscher for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE COURT: The appellant was tried on the following charges:
Count1
(Section 8(d) Drugs Misuse Act 1986)
That between the twenty-eighth day of September, 1997 and the twenty-ninth day of November, 1997 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland, BARRIE RANDALL VON SNARSKI unlawfully produced a dangerous drug namely, Methylamphetamine
And the quantity of the dangerous drug namely Methylamphetamine, exceeded 2.0 grams
ALTERNATIVELY
Count 2
(Section 11 Drugs Misuse Act 1986)
That between the twenty-eighth day of September, 1997 and the twenty-ninth day of November, 1997 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland, BARRIE RANDALL VON SNARSKI being the occupier of a place namely unit 138 Admiralty Towers 2, 501 Queen Street, Brisbane did permit such place to be used for the commission of a crime defined in Part 2 of the Drugs Misuse Act, 1986
The jury acquitted him of the first count but convicted him of the alternative second count. This is his appeal against that conviction.
The appeal is confined to two grounds:
(A) The learned trial judge erred in his directions relating to the offence of "permitting premises";
(B) There has been a miscarriage of justice in that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence.
The task of this court then is to examine the challenged directions and to examine the evidence in order to determine whether it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence under s 668E(1) of the Code. It is convenient to commence with a brief summary of the evidence.
On 28…
Continue reading R v Von Snarski
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Von Snarski [2001] QCA 71
- Case
- [2001] QCA 71
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with deciding whether the appellant had sufficient knowledge and exercised sufficient control over the premises to be found guilty of permitting the premises to be used for drug production. This required a careful interpretation of the terms "knowingly permit or suffer" and the meaning of "permitting" and "occupation" within the context of the statute. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury regarding the use of circumstantial evidence in reaching their verdict.
Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the appellant had indeed exercised control over the premises and had the requisite knowledge. The court held that the judge's direction to the jury was appropriate, as the evidence was capable of proving both occupation and knowledge. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed with no orders made beyond the dismissal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed.
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.