R v Watt - [2000] NSWCCA 37

CITATION: R v Watt [2000] NSWCCA 37

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60059/99

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 15 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 March 2000

PARTIES :

Raymond Gordon Watt (appellant)
Regina (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Hidden J at 2; Greg James J at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/31/0196

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Woods QC DCJ

COUNSEL : P G Hogan (appellant)
C K Maxwell QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: John Dweller & Associates (appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - admissibility of statements by co-offender to undercover police officer - whether verdict unreasonable

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
R v Macraild (CCA unreported 3 November 1997)
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1
Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60059/99

GROVE J
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J

Friday 26 May 2000

REGINA v RAYMOND GORDON WATT

JUDGMENT
1 GROVE J : I agree with the orders proposed by Hidden J., however I am unpersuaded that the content of the tape recording of the conversation between the undercover police officer and Bowman was inadmissible and I would adopt the approach to utilization of s87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 specified in the reasons of Greg James J.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60059 of 1999

GROVE J
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
Friday 26 May 2000

Regina v Raymond Gordon Watt
Judgment

2     HIDDEN J: The appellant, Raymond Gordon Watt, was tried before Woods DCJ, sitting without a jury, upon a charge of knowingly taking part in the supply of a commercial quantity of methyl-amphetamine. His Honour found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for four years, comprising a minimum term of two and a half years and an additional term of one and a half years. He appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against sentence.

The Crown case

3     On four occasions between 22 January and 5 March 1996, one David Bowman supplied amphetamine to a man who was in fact an undercover police officer. On each occasion, the transaction took place at the car park of a hotel near Ourimbah. It was the Crown case that Bowman was acting on behalf of the appellant, who provided the drug and received the proceeds of the sales.
4     To link the appellant to Bowman’s activities, the Crown relied upon surveillance evidence and evidence of conversations between Bowman and the undercover officer which, it was said, demonstrated the appellant’s involvement. The undercover officer gave evidence of a number of telephone conversations with Bowman, in some of which there was reference to someone called “Ray”. That person was said to be the appellant, whose first name is Raymond. One could infer from those conversations that “Ray” was the source of the drugs which Bowman supplied to the undercover officer. Conversations between…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [2000] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 22 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against conviction by the respondent, Watt, for his role in a conspiracy to traffic in drugs. The appeal hinged on the admissibility of statements made by his co-offender to an undercover police officer. Watt argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the statements, and that this error rendered the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge was correct in admitting the co-offender's statements, which were obtained during an undercover operation. Watt contended that the statements were inadmissible because they were obtained through a breach of the principles of natural justice, and because the undercover operation amounted to an entrapment. The prosecution argued that the statements were properly admitted as they were relevant and reliable, and that any procedural irregularities did not render them inadmissible. The court needed to determine the admissibility of these statements and whether their admission led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statements, as they were properly obtained and relevant to the charges against Watt. The court found that the undercover operation did not constitute entrapment and that the principles of natural justice were not breached. The statements were deemed reliable based on the totality of the evidence presented. The court further held that even if the statements were inadmissible, their exclusion would not have led to a different verdict. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The conviction of the respondent for his role in the conspiracy to traffic in drugs was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders