Snadden v O'KEEFE - [2009] WASC 26

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: SNADDEN -v- O'KEEFE [2009] WASC 26

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 19 JANUARY 2009

DELIVERED : 19 JANUARY 2009

PUBLISHED : 13 FEBRUARY 2009

FILE NO/S: SJA 1085 of 2008

BETWEEN: BRADLEY GORDON SNADDEN
Appellant
AND
BRENDEN SCOTT O'KEEFE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE T J McINTYRE
File No  :MH 4309 of 2008, MH 4310 of 2008

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply - Respondent concerting that evidence established that moneys found were lawfully obtained - Appeal conceded - Convictions quashed - Plea of guilty to lesser offence - Fine imposed

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Convictions set aside
Fined for lesser offence on plea of guilty to different charge

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr P W Catalano
Respondent: Mr L Hobson

Solicitors:

Appellant: Henry Sklarz
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

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

Nil

EM HEENAN J: By notice dated 6 October 2008 the appellant, Bradley Gordon Snadden, applied to this court for leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed upon him after a trial in the Magistrates Court by his Honour Mr McIntyre. The decision of his Honour convicting the appellant was given on 15 September 2008 and, after conviction, Mr Snadden was remanded for sentence and sentenced on or about 10 October 2008 to a period of imprisonment of 9 months, suspended for 18 months.
The charge upon which he was convicted and sentenced was that on 18 June 2008 at Greenfields he was in possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply to another and that the drug was methylamphetamine. That was a charge laid under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) alleging an offence against s 6(1)(a).
In addition to that particular offence there was a second offence charged, that Mr Snadden was in possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property, on the same date and at the same place, namely, $1,105 in cash which was reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully obtained. He was also convicted of that offence and the composite penalty, which I have mentioned, was imposed.
The grounds of appeal against those convictions are as follows:
(1)there was a miscarriage of justice, in that the presiding magistrate erred in making findings where he:
(a)rejected the sworn evidence of the appellant as the accused and a defence witness, Melanie Faith Jeffrey, that the cash, $1,105 as referred to in the second charge, was money received from the ANZ Bank and not from selling methylamphetamine; and further,
(b)that his Honour rejected the appellant's sworn evidence that exhibit B4 were the receipts from the ANZ Bank which were obtained by Ms Jeffrey for the appellant on the day of his arrest;
(2)that the presiding magistrate erred in finding that because he rejected the evidence of the appellant and Ms…

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 Snadden v O'KEEFE

Details

AGLC: Snadden v O'KEEFE [2009] WASC 26
Case: [2009] WASC 26
Decision Date: 19 JANUARY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Snadden v O'KEEFE, the respondent appealed against his conviction for possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply. The appeal arose from a decision in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the respondent had been found guilty based on evidence that included the discovery of a significant sum of money during a search of his residence. The respondent argued that the moneys found were lawfully obtained and thus should not have been considered in the determination of his guilt. The respondent conceded the appeal, leading to the quashing of his original convictions. In light of this, the respondent entered a plea of guilty to a lesser charge, resulting in the imposition of a fine.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of the moneys found during the search was admissible and relevant to the charge of possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply. The respondent contended that the moneys were lawfully obtained and unrelated to the drug charges, and thus should not have been considered in establishing the intent to sell or supply drugs. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting this evidence, which potentially impacted the validity of the convictions.

The court concluded that the trial judge had indeed erred in admitting the evidence of the moneys as it was not directly related to the offence of possession with intent to sell or supply. This error potentially tainted the overall findings of the trial. Consequently, the convictions were quashed. Given the circumstances, the respondent pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and a fine was imposed accordingly. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Convictions set aside

Fined for lesser offence on plea of guilty to different charge

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.