Regina v Lisa Bevan - [2002] NSWCCA 224

CITATION: REGINA v LISA BEVAN [2002] NSWCCA 224

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60578/01

HEARING DATE(S): 16 April 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 April 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v LISA BEVAN

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Barr J at 53; McClellan J at 54

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: P Barrett
Appellant: A P Berman SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor (Director of Public Prosecutions)
Appellant: D J Humpherys (Legal Aid)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal appeal - drug supply offences - miscarriage - Evidence Act, s44 - suggestion in cross examination that accused had accumulated assets from illicit dealings well prior to events in question - failure to give any direction.

DECISION: Appeal upheld. Convictions set aside and a new trial ordered.

CCA 60578/01

MASONP
BARR J
MCCLELLAN J
Tuesday 16 April 2002

REGINA v Lisa BEVAN

Judgment

1 MASON P: The appellant was tried in the District Court before Judge Twigg QC and a jury. The indictment contained several charges. The first was a charge that on 22 June 2000, she supplied a prohibited drug, cannabis leaf. The second was that between 21 June 2000 and 12 July 2000 there was an ongoing supply of a prohibited drug methylamphetamine. (There were alternative counts to the second.) The third was that on 11 July 2000 she supplied a prohibited drug, being a charge of deemed supply in relation to methylamphetamine. She was found not guilty on the first charge, and found guilty on the second and third. In consequence, the alternative counts did not proceed to a verdict.

2 The second count being the one on which she was first found guilty, arises under s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which makes it an offence for a person on three or more separate occasions, during any period of 30 consecutive days, to supply a prohibited drug other than cannabis, for financial or material reward.

3 The Crown case was a very strong one. There was evidence of controlled undercover drug operations, in which two undercover police officers, using assumed names, participated in controlled purchases from the appellant.

4 The first series of events took place on 22 June 2000 and they involved a controlled purchase of a quantity of cannabis and of amphetamines. It would appear however, that that was a transaction which the jury were not satisfied was proven, because the cannabis part of it was the subject of the first count on which the appellant was acquitted, and because there seems to be no reason to distinguish between the alleged supply of the cannabis, and that of methylamphetamine said to have occurred on that occasion.

5 There were however, three other transactions which were the subject of the s 25A(1) offence, and the evidence of the police witnesses was supported by listening device material in relation to two of them. I do not think it necessary to go into the detail, beyond reiterating…

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 Regina v Lisa Bevan

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lisa BEVAN [2002] NSWCCA 224
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 224
Decision Date: 16 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Bevan appeals against her conviction for drug supply offences, raising concerns about the trial judge's handling of evidence during cross-examination. The trial involved allegations of Bevan's involvement in the supply of illicit drugs, with the prosecution suggesting she had accumulated wealth from such activities. The appeal was heard by the court of criminal appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the legal process and the handling of evidence during the trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred by not directing the jury to disregard an implication in cross-examination that Bevan had accumulated significant assets from illicit drug dealings long before the events in question. The court had to consider whether this implication was prejudicial and whether it necessitated a direction to the jury to disregard it. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge's failure to address this issue constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court of criminal appeal determined that the implication in cross-examination that Bevan had accumulated assets from illicit drug dealings prior to the events in question was indeed prejudicial. The court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury to disregard this implication. Given the potential impact of this implication on the jury's assessment of Bevan's character and motives, the court concluded that the failure to give a direction amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and quashed Bevan's convictions, ordering a retrial.

Orders