Regina v Thompson - [2000] NSWCCA 243

CITATION: Regina v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 243

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60487/99

HEARING DATE(S): 05/07/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Graham Allan Thompson

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P; James J; Whealy J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0846

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Morgan DCJ

COUNSEL : SJ Odgers - Appellant
WG Dawe QC - Crown

SOLICITORS: John Bettens and Co - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

060487/99

MASON P
JAMES J
WHEALY J

Wednesday 5 July 2000

REGINA v GRAHAM ALLAN THOMPSON

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: Graham Allan Thompson has appealed against his conviction after a trial in the District Court, before her Honour Judge Morgan and a jury, on one count of supplying a prohibited drug, namely methylenedioxymethylamphetamine, an offence under s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. Judge Morgan sentenced the appellant by imposing an order that he perform 350 hours of community service.
2   The Crown case at the trial was that the appellant was guilty of the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, by virtue of having been in possession of a quantity of the prohibited drug being not less than the trafficable quantity. At the trial the appellant disputed that he had been in possession of any amount of the drug.
3   The evidence in the Crown case can be briefly summarised as follows.
4   On the evening of 10 June 1997 a number of police officers began surveillance of a house property at 1 Renwick Street, Drummoyne. At about 7 o'clock police observed a motor vehicle enter Renwick Street and stop outside the premises. The appellant got out of the vehicle. Police officers approached the appellant and told him that they had a warrant to search the premises. Police then entered the premises, using keys obtained from the appellant. A man named Jack Anslow, who lived at the premises, was not at the premises that evening.
5   1 Renwick Street Drummoyne was a small terrace house. In the front of the house facing the street were two bedrooms, separated by a hallway, which led into a lounge room. Alongside the lounge room there was a dining room. Entry from the lounge room into the dining room was gained through an open archway. There was a table inside the dining room. At the rear of the premises there were a bathroom, verandah and kitchen and some small hallways.
6   A number of police officers entered the premises on the evening of 10 June 1997. These officers, identifying them simply by their surnames, were Walker, Arahill, Rawson, Keegan, Iorfino, Sinadinovic, who made a video recording of part of the search, Scholtes, who was the exhibits officer having the responsibility of recording in the exhibits log objects found during the search, and Whittaker, who was an independent officer not himself participating in the search. Of these police officers, Keegan, Iorfino, Sinadinovic, Scholtes and Whittaker gave evidence for…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 243
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 243
Decision Date: 5 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Thompson, Graham Allan Thompson appealed against his conviction for supplying a prohibited drug, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine, contrary to section 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The case was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Mason P, James J, and Whealy J. The appeal was dismissed by the court. The central issue was whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable, given the circumstantial nature of the Crown's case. The appeal hinged on whether the jury could have reasonably inferred that an unknown police officer might have placed the drugs in the appellant's glass case to incriminate him. The court examined whether the hypothesis that the drugs were planted by a police officer was reasonably open on the evidence presented.

The court found that the hypothesis suggested by the appellant's counsel, that an unidentified police officer might have planted the drugs to incriminate the appellant, was not supported by any concrete evidence. The tablets and cash were found in a glass case belonging to the appellant, and there was no evidence suggesting that any police officer had the opportunity or motive to plant the drugs. The court concluded that the jury could have excluded this hypothesis as not reasonably open on the evidence and found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal against conviction was dismissed by the court.

Orders