R v Wright - [2013] QCA 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wright [2013] QCA 178

PARTIES:

R
v
WRIGHT, David Alexander
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 72 of 2012
SC No 432 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 April 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Daubney J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was convicted of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months – where during a pre-trial hearing the judge made a ruling that the record of interview of the appellant was admissible and the exercise of a search warrant was validly issued – whether the judge erred in making those rulings

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant referred to photographs of the intercepted parcel at various stages between its interception and consignment on the controlled delivery – where the appellant contended that the continuity evidence was insufficient for the jury to have been satisfied that the intercepted substance was the same substance from which a sample was taken for scientific examination – whether the evidence established a clear and consistent continuity of identity of the substance that was intercepted with the substance that was sampled for analysis

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3E, s 3H, s 3R

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered
R v Craig Anthony Wright[2012] QCA 212, cited
Robert Bax and Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 476; [2012] QCA 177, followed
Wright v The Queen [2013] HCASL 54, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kent for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Gotterson JA and the order he proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: On 7 March 2012 the appellant was convicted by a jury of a Commonwealth offence, attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs. He was sentenced on the following day to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months.

The appellant appeals against his conviction. His notice of appeal filed on 5 April 2012 sets out one ground of appeal only. It arises out of a pre-trial hearing of an application made under s 590AA of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) by the appellant and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Wright and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] QCA 178
Decision Date: 12 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wright, the appellant was convicted of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs, and subsequently sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence during the trial. Specifically, the court was asked to determine if the trial judge's decision to admit the record of interview and to validate the exercise of a search warrant was correct.

The court carefully examined the grounds of appeal, focusing on the admissibility and relevance of the evidence in question. It was argued that the continuity evidence linking the intercepted parcel to the substance sampled for analysis was insufficient. The appellant contended that the photographs and records did not establish a clear and consistent continuity of identity of the substance, thereby questioning the reliability of the evidence presented to the jury. However, the court found that the evidence provided a clear chain of custody and maintained the integrity of the intercepted parcel from the moment it was intercepted through to its consignment on the controlled delivery. Consequently, the court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the contested evidence.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The reasoning of the trial judge in admitting the evidence was found to be sound, and the evidence was sufficient to establish the necessary continuity of identity for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the intercepted substance was the same as that sampled for analysis. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence stood.

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.

CITATION:	R v Wright [2013] QCA 178
PARTIES:	R v WRIGHT, David Alexander (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 72 of 2012 SC No 432 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 April 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Daubney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant was convicted of attempting to possess a marketable quantity of unlawfully imported border controlled drugs – where the appellant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 months – where during a pre-trial hearing the judge made a ruling that the record of interview of the appellant was admissible and the exercise of a search warrant was validly issued – whether the judge erred in making those rulings CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – OTHER CASES – where the appellant referred to photographs of the intercepted parcel at various stages between its interception and consignment on the controlled delivery – where the appellant contended that the continuity evidence was insufficient for the jury to have been satisfied that the intercepted substance was the same substance from which a sample was taken for scientific examination – whether the evidence established a clear and consistent continuity of identity of the substance that was intercepted with the substance that was sampled for analysis Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3E, s 3H, s 3R Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, considered R v Craig Anthony Wright[2012] QCA 212, cited Robert Bax and Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2013] 1 Qd R 476; [2012] QCA 177, followed Wright v The Queen [2013] HCASL 54, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf D R Kent for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent