Regina v Taylor - [1999] NSWCCA 309

CITATION: Regina v Taylor [1999] NSWCCA 309

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60171/99

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 27 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 September 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen John Taylor

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Sully J at 20; Greg James J at 21

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0487

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney DCJ

COUNSEL: M.M. Cunneen (Crown)
P. Kintominas (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Claim By Appellant To Have Lied To Investigators - Crown Case That He Told The Truth - Adequacy Of Directions To Jury

CASES CITED:
R v Preval 1984 3 NSWLR 647

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60171/99

GROVE J
SULLY J
GREG JAMES J

Monday 27 September 1999

REGINA v STEPHEN JOHN TAYLOR

JUDGMENT

1 GROVE J: This is an appeal against conviction after trial before Viney DCJ and a jury at Sydney District Court. The appellant was convicted of supplying a trafficable quantity of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis leaf weighing approximately 3.15 kilos. The deeming provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 operate to make the appellant liable for supply when in possession of such a quantity.
2    The appellant arrived in Sydney on a flight from Adelaide on 5 February 1998. A "sniffer" dog had drawn attention to a particular suitcase and the appellant was observed to collect it from the luggage carousel. Upon leaving the terminal he was detained by police officers and taken to an office where he was asked to open the suitcase. The activity was filmed on video tape.
3    On opening the bag the appellant noticed some newspapers and he thereon claimed that the luggage piece had been the subject of tampering in that he was aware that its contents should have been just two quilts and two pillows. These items had been taken by him to Adelaide on a previous trip when relatives had gathered for his mother's funeral.
4    Upon the luggage being opened, three cream coloured PVC pipes were located at the bottom of the bag which contained the drug abovementioned.
5    Part of the conversation between Constable Salter, who was operating the video tape, and the appellant consisted of her asking: "Sir, who packed the bag today?" and the appellant replying: "I packed the bag yesterday".
6    At trial the appellant gave evidence that he had collected the bag from his sister who was the occupant of their mother's former home. Because he was visiting a friend at a different location, he had arranged by telephone for his sister to leave the bag for him, already packed, on the front porch. His sister gave evidence confirming the arrangement and its being carried out. It was suggested that a de facto partner of his sister may have been responsible for placing the drug in the luggage. There was considerable animosity between him and the appellant.
7    The appellant testified that he did make the reply…

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 Regina v Taylor 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: [1999] NSWCCA 309
Decision Date: 27 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with perjury after the Crown alleged that he had lied to investigators during a police interview. The appeal against his conviction was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate. The appellant argued that the directions were insufficient and that the jury should have been directed to consider the possibility that he had lied under a misapprehension of fact.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge provided adequate directions to the jury regarding the appellant's claim that he had lied due to a misapprehension of fact. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the necessity of proving that the appellant knew the statement he made was false or did not believe it to be true. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the directions given were sufficient and that the jury had been properly instructed on the elements of the offence of perjury.

The High Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate because they did not adequately address the possibility that the appellant had lied under a misapprehension of fact. The Court emphasised that the jury should have been directed to consider whether the appellant knew that the statement he made was false or did not believe it to be true. The Court found that the failure to properly direct the jury on this point was a significant error that could have affected the outcome of the trial. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered. The Court also noted that in future trials involving claims of lying under a misapprehension of fact, the trial judge should provide clear and comprehensive directions to the jury on the elements of the offence and the need to consider the possibility of a misapprehension of fact.

Orders