Taylor v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 50

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0285

ROBIN JAMES TAYLOR	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, HARGRAVE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 February 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 50
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Taylor (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Patrick, 9 April 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant convicted of trafficking a ‘drug of dependence’ contrary to s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (‘Drugs Act’) – Indictment charged applicant with trafficking ‘anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents’ – Applicant alleged to be in business of trafficking in accordance with Giretti v The Queen (1986) 24 A Crim R 112 – Multiple anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents referred to in charge – Whether offence as charged known to law – Whether charge bad for duplicity – Whether verdict uncertain – Definition of ‘drug of dependence’ in s 4 of Drugs Act considered – Anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents not a ‘drug of dependence’ within (c)(ii) definition in s 4 – Section 37 of Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 considered – Charge not duplicitous – Verdict not uncertain – Leave to appeal granted in respect of challenge to charge as formulated – Not known to law – Appeal allowed – Conviction quashed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Kassimatis QC with Mr S J Tovey	Fayman Lawyers
For the Crown	Mr R L Gibson QC with Mr T Bourbon	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
HARGRAVE JA

WEINBERG JA:

On 1 December 2017, following a trial in the County Court at Melbourne, the applicant, Robin James Taylor, was convicted of the offences set out in the table below.

On 9 April 2018, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

1.

Traffick drug of dependence [s 71AC — Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]

15 years

7 years’ imprisonment

2.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years’ imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

3.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years’ imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

4.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

5.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

6.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

7.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence

8.

Importation of Tier 1 Goods [s 233BAA(4) — Customs Act 1901 (Cth)]

5 years

2 years imprisonment (part of an aggregate sentence)

9.

Importation…

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 Taylor v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robin James Taylor v The Queen [2020] VSCA 50
Case: [2020] VSCA 50
Decision Date: 17 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v The Queen, the applicant, Mr Taylor, appealed against his conviction for trafficking in anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents, alleging it was not a known offence under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Drugs Act). The dispute centred on whether the substances in question constituted a 'drug of dependence' under the statute and whether the charge was duplicitous, leading to an uncertain verdict. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining these legal issues.

The central legal issues were whether anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents are classified as a 'drug of dependence' under section 4 of the Drugs Act and whether the charge against Mr Taylor was duplicitous, resulting in an uncertain verdict. Additionally, the court examined the interpretation of the charge and its conformity with statutory definitions and legislative principles.

The Court began by examining the definition of 'drug of dependence' in section 4 of the Drugs Act. It concluded that anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents did not fit within the definition provided in section 4(c)(ii). The Court then turned to section 37 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984, which it applied to clarify the legislative intent. The Court found that the charge was not duplicitous, as it did not suffer from uncertainty. However, it also determined that the charge was not known to law because the substances did not fall under the statutory definition of a 'drug of dependence'. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.

As a result of the Court's decision, Mr Taylor's conviction for trafficking in anabolic and androgenic steroidal agents was quashed. The Court's ruling established a significant legal precedent regarding the interpretation of the Drugs Act and the classification of substances within its scope.

Orders