SKELTON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 76

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 76
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:141/2002	Heard:	4 FEBRUARY 2003
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J	Delivered:	8/04/03
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	NATHAN JOHN SKELTON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction Possession of prohibited import Guilty plea Whether plea vitiated by prosecution not proving drugs were reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia
Legislation:	Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(ca), 50, 51 Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 100
Case References:	Milicevic v Campbell (1975) 6 ALR 1 Barany v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 426 Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465 Cameron [2002] 76 ALJR 382 Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35 DPP v El Karhani (1990) 97 ALR 373 Gallaher v The Queen (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135 Heryadi (1998) 19 WAR 383 Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120 Lim v Bateman (2001) 165 FLR 268 Pearce & Carter v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (1992) 59 A Crim R 182 R v Boxtel (1994) 2 VR 98 R v Caruso (1988) 49 SASR 465 R v Leff (1996) 86 A Crim R 212 R v Olbrich (1999) CLR 270 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : SKELTON -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 76 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

TEMPLEMAN J

MILLER J

HEARD : 4 FEBRUARY 2003 DELIVERED : 8 APRIL 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 141 of 2002 BETWEEN : NATHAN JOHN SKELTON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Possession of prohibited import - Guilty plea - Whether plea vitiated by prosecution not proving drugs were reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia

Legislation:

Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 233B(1)(ca), 50, 51

Justices Act 1902 (WA), s 100

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr B S Hanbury

Respondent : Mr D W L Renton

Solicitors:

Applicant : Beau Hanbury

Respondent : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Milicevic v Campbell (1975) 6 ALR 1

Case(s) also cited:

Barany v The Queen (2000) 114 A Crim R 426
Bellissimo (1996) 84 A Crim R 465
Cameron [2002] 76 ALJR 382
Darwell (1997) 94 A Crim R 35
DPP v El Karhani (1990) 97 ALR 373
Gallaher v The Queen (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
Grimwood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 135
Heryadi (1998) 19 WAR 383
Liberti v R (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Lim v Bateman (2001) 165 FLR 268
Pearce & Carter v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (1992) 59 A Crim R 182
R v Boxtel (1994) 2 VR 98
R v Caruso (1988)…

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 Skelton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Skelton v The Queen [2003] WASCA 76
Case: [2003] WASCA 76
Decision Date: 8 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Skelton, was convicted of possession of a prohibited import, specifically cocaine. Skelton pleaded guilty to the offence but appealed against the conviction on the basis that his plea was not properly obtained as the prosecution failed to prove that the drugs were reasonably suspected of having been imported into Australia. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which considered the legal principles surrounding the obtaining of a guilty plea in criminal cases.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution's failure to prove the importation element of the offence rendered Skelton's guilty plea invalid. The appellant argued that without proof of importation, the offence was not properly established, and thus the plea could not be considered valid. The court had to determine whether the prosecution's omission in this regard constituted a fundamental error that invalidated the plea and the subsequent conviction.

The court found that the prosecution's failure to prove importation did not vitiate Skelton's guilty plea. The court held that the importation element was not a jurisdictional fact that needed to be established at the plea stage. Instead, it was a matter that could be addressed at the sentencing phase, if necessary. The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to prove importation at the plea stage did not render the plea invalid, as the plea was made with full knowledge of the charges and the consequences of pleading guilty. The appeal was dismissed, and Skelton's conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.