Legal Research
Cases
Smith, Maltimore v The Queen

Smith, Maltimore v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 93 20 May 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Smith, Maltimore v R [2016] NSWCCA 93
Hearing dates: 18 March 2016
Decision date: 20 May 2016
Before: Beazley P;
Harrison J;
R A Hulme J
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction under Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1(1) – directions to jury – whether jury directed as to permissible course of reasoning for the purposes of establishing intention
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction under Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1(1) – directions to jury – whether jury misdirected as to fault element of intention with respect to the physical element of importing a substance
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Afford v The Queen; DPP (Cth) v Afford [2016] VSCA 56
Cao v R [2006] NSWCCA 89; 65 NSWLR 552
Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2004 [2005] VSCA 172; 12 VR 299
Fang v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 254
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd [2007] HCA 22; 230 CLR 89
He Kaw Teh v R [1985] HCA 43; 157 CLR 523
Kural v R [1987] HCA 16; 162 CLR 502
Pereira v DPP [1988] HCA 57; 82 ALR 217
R v Jogee; Ruddock v The Queen [2016] UKSC 8
R v Narongchai Saengsai-Or [2004] NSWCCA 108; 61 NSWLR 135
R v Ping [2005] QCA 472; [2006] 2 Qd R 69
R v Reid [2006] QCA 202; [2007] 1 Qd R 64
R v Tang [2008] HCA 39; 237 CLR 1
R v Verde [2009] VSCA 16; 193 A Crim R 211
R v Willmot (No 2) [1985] 2 Qd R 413
Rosenfeld v R [2009] NSWCCA 74
Saad v R [1987] HCA 14; 70 ALR 667
Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12
Texts Cited: Explanatory Memorandum to the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2005
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Maltimore Smith (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Odgers SC (Appellant)
T Anderson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
The Commissioner, Legal Aid Commission NSW (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/326980
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

26 September 2014

Before:

Hock DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/326980

Headnote

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The appellant was convicted, after a trial by jury, of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine into Australia contrary to the Criminal Code (Cth), s 307.1(1). The appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years, to commence on 29 October 2013.

The appellant’s account of the circumstances in which he came to travel to Australia was that one “Reverend James Ukaegbu” had organised his trip from the United States to India. As the account went, the appellant had met with a friend of the Reverend in India, who asked the…

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 Smith, Maltimore v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Smith, Maltimore v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 93
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 93
Decision Date: 20 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Maltimore, was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of a controlled substance under the Criminal Code. Maltimore appealed his conviction to the High Court, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the permissible course of reasoning to establish intention and the fault element concerning the physical element of importing a substance. The central issue before the court was whether the jury was properly guided on these legal aspects. The High Court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury to determine if they aligned with established legal principles and whether any misdirection occurred that could have influenced the jury's verdict.

The court focused on the trial judge's explanation of the permissible course of reasoning for establishing intention and the fault element related to the importation of a controlled substance. The High Court assessed whether the directions were clear, accurate, and aligned with legal precedents. The court also considered whether any misdirection could have led the jury to reach a conclusion that was not supported by the evidence. The analysis involved a meticulous review of the trial judge's instructions and their conformity with the legal standards required for such a conviction.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury concerning the permissible course of reasoning for establishing intention. The court held that the directions provided were in accordance with legal principles and did not lead to any unreasonable or unsafe conclusion. Regarding the fault element, the court determined that the jury was adequately guided, and no misdirection occurred that would warrant a new trial. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the jury's verdict was properly reached based on the evidence and legal instructions provided.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction of Maltimore for importing a commercial quantity of a controlled substance was upheld. The High Court's decision affirmed the trial judge's handling of the jury's instructions and found no basis to overturn the conviction.

Orders