Legal Research
Cases
Taub v The Queen

Taub v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 198 21 August 2017

Expert Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Taub v R [2017] NSWCCA 198
Hearing dates: 10 February 2017
Decision date: 21 August 2017
Before: Simpson JA at [1], Walton J at [84], Button J at [85]
Decision:
(1)  Appeal against conviction of manufacturing not less than the large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine allowed;

(2)  The verdict of guilty of that offence be set aside;

(3) In lieu thereof, pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), the appellant be convicted of manufacturing not less than the commercial quantity of methylamphetamine;
(4)  Matter remitted to the District Court for sentencing for that offence.
Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – opinion evidence – exceptions to the opinion rule – expert opinion – proof of assumption rule – basis rule – whether assumptions underlying expert opinion must be proved for the opinion to be admissible
CRIME – manufacture large commercial quantity of prohibited drug – where only evidence of quantity of drug produced is expert opinion evidence – whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Pt 4 Div 1A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 6, 7
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 24, 30, 33
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 76, 79, 137, 177
Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich (2005) 218 ALR 764; [2005] NSWCA 152
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78
Kyluk Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage (2013) 298 ALR 532; [2013] NSWCCA 114
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
R v Fletcher (2005) 156 A Crim R 308; [2005] NSWCCA 338
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Taub (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K H Averre (Appellant)
N J Adams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Andrews Solicitors (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/259457
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 March 2015; 29 May 2015

Before:

Culver DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/259457

HEADNOTE

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

On 24 March 2015 the appellant was found guilty of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine, contrary to s 24(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (“the DMT Act”). At the time, the DMT Act prescribed that a “large commercial quantity” of methylamphetamine was 1 kilogram. By s 24(3) of the DMT Act, it was open to the jury to convict the appellant of manufacturing a lesser quantity of methylamphetamine,…

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 Taub v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Taub v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 198
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 198
Decision Date: 21 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taub v The Queen, the appellant was charged with manufacturing a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The primary evidence against the appellant was the opinion of a police expert that the appellant had manufactured a large commercial quantity of the drug. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appellant's conviction was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The central legal issue was whether the assumptions underlying the expert's opinion must be proved for the opinion to be admissible.

The court examined the exceptions to the opinion rule, focusing on the basis rule and the proof of assumption rule. The basis rule permits an expert to give evidence of their opinion on an ultimate issue, provided that the basis of their opinion is proved. The proof of assumption rule requires that the assumptions underlying an expert's opinion must be proved for the opinion to be admissible. The court concluded that the proof of assumption rule did not apply in this case because the expert's opinion was not based on assumptions that were outside the common experience or knowledge of the jury. Instead, the court held that the basis rule applied, and since the basis of the expert's opinion was proved, the opinion was admissible.

The court further held that the appellant's conviction was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The expert's opinion, based on the quantity of the drug produced, was sufficient to support the verdict. The court found that the jury was entitled to accept the expert's opinion as reliable and that there was no error in the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the weight to be given to the expert's opinion. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's conviction.

Orders