Regina v Cornelissen

[1999] NSWCCA 211

CITATION:	Regina v Cornelissen [1999] NSWCCA 211
FILE NUMBER(S):	CCA 60784 of 1998
HEARING DATE(S):	29 July 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 July 1999
PARTIES :	Regina v Peter Joseph Paul Cornellissen
JUDGMENT OF:	Dunford J at 6 & 8; Hidden J at 7; Smart AJ at 1-5

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	N/A - papers destroyed. Trial at Parkes 15 & 16/2/93 Sentence on 18/2/93.
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL:	P. Byrne SC for the Appellant C.K. Maxwell QC for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Palmers for the Appellant S E O'Connor for the Respondent
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Police fabricate evidence against appellant
ACTS CITED:	-Nil-
CASES CITED:	-Nil-
DECISION:	Extend time to appeal out of time; Appeal allowed; Conviction quashed; Verdict of Acquittal entered.

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

060784/98

DUNFORD J
HIDDEN J
SMART AJ

THURSDAY, 29 JULY, 1999

REGINA V PETER JOSEPH PAUL CORNEILISSEN


JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ : Peter Joseph Paul Corneilissen applies for an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction of supplying a traffickable quantity of prohibited drugs, namely amphetamines, in November 1991. Judge Mahoney sentenced him, on 18 February 1993, to a minimum term of nine months and an additional term of thirteen months.
2 Three detectives went to the premises of the appellant at Forbes taking a quantity of amphetamines with them. The detectives “ loaded up ” the appellant with such amphetamines. They weighed up the amphetamines in front of the appellant and then charged him with the offence mentioned. They supported that charge by giving false evidence. This was wicked conduct and a serious abuse of power.
3 During the Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service the detectives involved admitted the foregoing conduct.
4 The Crown accepts that its case rested entirely upon police evidence which was subsequently admitted to be fabricated by the police. Accordingly, the Crown concedes, and correctly so, that the appeal should be upheld and a verdict of acquittal entered.
5 The following orders should be made:
1. Extend time until today in which the applicant may appeal.
2. Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
3. Verdict of acquittal entered.
6 DUNFORD J: I agree.
7 HIDDEN J: I agree.
8 DUNFORD J: The orders will be as indicated by Justice
Smart.
**********