Regan v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 6

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Regan v R [2019] NSWCCA 6
Hearing dates: 22 August 2018
Date of orders: 22 August 2018
Decision date: 11 February 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [49]; Price J at [50]
Decision:
(1) Quash the conviction of the appellant of 18 August 2017.
(2) Order a re-trial of the appellant.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal –conviction – whether miscarriage of justice occurred –trial judge directed witness to not resume giving evidence –trial judge failed to direct jury of need to be unanimous as to possession of particular quantity of drugs.

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Elomar v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 303; (2014) 316 ALR 206
Lane v The Queen [2018] HCA 28; (2018) 92 ALJR 689
The Queen v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; [2008] VSCA 75
The Queen v Walsh [2002] VSCA 98; (2002) 131 A Crim R 299

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Scott Edward Regan (appellant)
The Crown (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Game SC with D Barrow (appellant)
F Veltro (respondent)
Solicitors:
J Horsburgh (appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/319359
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

18 August 2017

Before:

Colefax DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/319359

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: The appellant Scott Edward Regan (the appellant) was charged on indictment for the following offences:

“SCOTT EDWARD REGAN
1 On 29 October 2014, at Bathurst in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine.
S 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Law part code 3181
AND the Director of Public Prosecutions FURTHER CHARGES that
SCOTT EDWARD REGAN
2 On 29 October 2014, at Bathurst in the State of New South Wales, did supply a prohibited drug, namely, methylamphetamine.
S 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Law part code 16960.”

In relation to Count 1 of the indictment, the Crown relied on the fact that at the time of the execution of a search warrant at the appellant’s business premises, a total of 162.5 grams of methylamphetamine was located in four different places, as follows:

Count 1:

28.6 grams in a re-sealable bag found above a cross-beam in the warehouse secreted in a light fitting wrapped in a grey plastic bag,

31.8 grams found in a bag on a shelf in the office,

96.5 grams found in a resealable bag under a loose tile in the reception area (also a set of small digital scales),

6.5 grams distributed among five small resealable bags also found under the loose tile in the reception area.

Count 2 related to the discovery of 3.84 grams of methylamphetamine located behind the driver’s door window switch of the Toyota Hilux that the applicant drove.
In bringing the charges against the appellant, the Crown relied upon the extended definition…

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 Regan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Decision restricted [2019] NSWCCA 6
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 6
Decision Date: 11 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regan v The Queen involved the appellant's appeal against his conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant was found guilty of possessing a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug with intent to supply, and the case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contended that the trial judge's conduct led to a miscarriage of justice, as the judge did not properly instruct the jury regarding the requirement for unanimity on the quantity of drugs involved in the offence. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge's direction to a witness not to resume giving evidence was improper and prejudicial.

The central legal issues that the court had to resolve were whether the trial judge's conduct resulted in a miscarriage of justice and whether the jury was properly directed regarding the necessity for unanimity on the quantity of drugs. The court had to consider whether the trial judge's actions, including the direction to a witness and the failure to instruct the jury adequately, were sufficient to vitiate the appellant's conviction.

In addressing these issues, the High Court found that the trial judge's direction to the witness did not prejudice the appellant's case, as the witness had already provided substantial evidence, and any additional testimony would not have significantly altered the outcome. However, the court determined that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the need for unanimity regarding the quantity of drugs constituted a significant error. This error was sufficient to create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, as the jury's verdict might have been influenced by differing interpretations of the quantity of drugs. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

The High Court ordered that the appellant's conviction be quashed and that a re-trial be conducted, ensuring that the jury is properly directed on the requirement for unanimity regarding the quantity of drugs. This decision underscores the importance of clear and accurate jury directions in criminal trials to safeguard the fairness of the judicial process.

Orders