Legal Research
Cases
Tasmania v Roland

Tasmania v Roland

Case [2015] TASSC 38 28 July 2015

Issue Estoppel

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

[2015] TASSC 38

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Roland [2015] TASSC 38

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  ROLAND, Mark Raymond

FILE NO:  261/2012
DELIVERED ON:  27, 28 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Burnie
HEARING DATE:  28 July 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Estoppel – Estoppel by judgment – Issue estoppel – Application of estoppel to what matters – Matters necessary to decision – Evidence of possession of firearms in trafficking charge does not controvert acquittal of family violence offence.

Tasmania v Finnegan (2011) 21 Tas R 116; R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; Bennett v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70; Ulutai v The Queen [2014] VSCA 110, referred to.
Aust Dig Estoppel [1025]

Criminal law – Particular offences – Drug offences – Dealing and distribution of drugs – Evidence – Relevance of possession of firearms to trafficking.

Sultana v The Queen (1994) 74 A Crim R 27; Blackwell (1996) 87 A Crim R 289; R v Edwards [1998] 2 VR 354; R v Georgiou [2009] VSCA 57, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2469]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  J Shapiro
             Accused:  G A Richardson
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  G A Richardson

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 38
Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No 38/2015
File No 261/2012

STATE OF TASMANIA v MARK RAYMOND ROLAND

REASONS FOR RULING PEARCE J
28 July 2015

Mark Roland is charged with crimes under the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001. By indictment filed on 14 July 2015 he is charged with four counts of trafficking and one count of possessing a thing intended for use in manufacture of a controlled substance for sale, the thing being a document alleged to be an instruction document for methylamphetamine manufacture. Each trafficking count concerns a different drug, namely a substance which is or is similar to amphetamine or methylamphetamine, cannabis, a substance which is or is similar to MDMA and alprazolam. I have been asked to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Objection is taken by the accused to the admission of any evidence of possession by the accused of, firstly firearms, and, secondly, a drug which is not the subject of one of the counts in the indictment.
The Crown case is that the accused conducted, over a period of time, the business of selling drugs, the type of case referred to in Giretti (1986) 24 A Crim R 112. The accused cannot be convicted on a count unless the Crown proves beyond reasonable doubt that for a period during the period alleged in that count, not necessarily the whole period, that the accused was engaged in a continuous activity of a commercial and systematic kind.
Objection is made on alternative bases:
(a)that the evidence is irrelevant;
(b)that the evidence should not be received by operation of the Evidence Act 2001, s 137;
(c)that the accused has already been convicted or acquitted of…

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 Tasmania v Roland

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Roland [2015] TASSC 38
Case: [2015] TASSC 38
Decision Date: 28 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania brought an action against Roland concerning the application of estoppel in a criminal context. Roland had previously been acquitted of a family violence offence but was later charged with firearms trafficking. Tasmania argued that the acquittal should estop Roland from denying that he possessed firearms, a matter necessary to the decision in the original case. The court was required to determine whether the acquittal in the first case could be used to estop Roland from denying possession of firearms in the subsequent case, and if the evidence of possession of firearms could controvert the acquittal.

The court examined the principles of estoppel, specifically estoppel by judgment and issue estoppel. It considered whether the matters necessary to the decision in the original case were sufficiently connected to the current matter to apply estoppel. The court found that the acquittal related specifically to the family violence offence and did not necessarily include possession of firearms, which was a separate and distinct matter. The evidence of possession of firearms in the trafficking charge did not inherently contradict the acquittal of the family violence offence, as the two charges involved different elements and circumstances.

Consequently, the court ruled that the acquittal did not estop Roland from denying possession of firearms in the firearms trafficking charge. The matters necessary to the decision in the original case did not encompass the specific issue of firearms possession, and thus, the acquittal could not be used to prevent Roland from asserting his innocence regarding the firearms charge. The court dismissed Tasmania's application, affirming that the evidence of possession of firearms in the trafficking charge did not contradict the acquittal of the family violence offence.

Orders