ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE A J MAUGHAN
File No  :KA 2051 of 2012, KA 2052 of 2012, KA 2053 of 2012

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Convictions for possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply - Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant possessed the drugs - Whether magistrate erred in putting insufficient weight on evidence called by appellant

Criminal law - Appeal conviction for being in possession of cash reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained - Sufficiency of magistrate's reasons - Whether findings supported conviction that all the money seized by police was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained - Whether magistrate erred in not accepting hearsay evidence and not putting weight on evidence called by appellant

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 428
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), sch 1 cl 8
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA), s 31
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 6, s 11

Result:

Leave to appeal refused on each ground
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr W P T Reid
Respondent: Mr L M Fox

Solicitors:

Appellant: McKenzie & McKenzie
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576
Cotter v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 202
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gardner v Caporn [2005] WASCA 153
Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1999) 21 WAR 226
Pickett v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 291

JENKINS J:

This is an appeal from the decision of a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Kalgoorlie on 25 August 2014, to convict the appellant of the following offences:
(1)possession of a prohibited drug, namely methamphetamine, with intent to sell or supply it to another (prosecution notice KA 2051/12);
(2)possession of a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with intent to sell or supply it to another (prosecution notice KA 2052/12); and
(3)possession of $68,798.25, in cash, that was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained (prosecution notice KA 2053/12).

Grounds of appeal

The proposed grounds of appeal are that:
1.The learned Magistrate erred in law and a miscarriage of justice occurred when the Magistrate convicted the Appellant of the offences [of] intent to sell or supply methylamphetamine, intent to sell and supply cannabis and possess stolen or unlawfully obtained property. The learned Magistrate:
a)did not make any or any adequate findings in relation to whether some or any of the money was lawfully obtained;
b)did not give any or any sufficient weight to the evidence…

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 Rundle v Innerd

Details

AGLC: Rundle v Innerd [2015] WASC 340
Case: [2015] WASC 340
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rundle v Innerd, the appellant, Rundle, appealed against his convictions for possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply, and for being in possession of cash reasonably suspected of being unlawfully obtained. The dispute arose from an incident where Rundle was found in possession of drugs and a substantial amount of cash. The court of appeal was tasked with determining whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether the magistrate had erred in the weight given to the evidence presented by the appellant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish Rundle's possession of the drugs, and whether the magistrate had erred in the weight given to the appellant's evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the magistrate's reasons for conviction were sufficient, particularly in relation to the cash found in Rundle's possession. The court also needed to determine whether the magistrate had erred in not accepting hearsay evidence and not giving appropriate weight to the evidence called by Rundle.

The court of appeal found that the evidence was indeed sufficient to establish Rundle's possession of the drugs, and that the magistrate had not erred in the weight given to the evidence. Regarding the cash, the court held that the magistrate's reasons were sufficient and that the findings supported the conviction that all the money seized was reasonably suspected to be unlawfully obtained. The court also concluded that the magistrate did not err in not accepting hearsay evidence and not giving weight to Rundle's evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

There were no further orders made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The convictions of the appellant remained intact as per the magistrate's original decision.

Orders