Tennant v R - [2006] NSWCCA 208

CITATION: Tennant v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 208

HEARING DATE(S): 24 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; James J at 2; Hoeben J at 64

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - counsels' addresses - defence counsel addressing first - separation of jury during retirement - no miscarriage of justice

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act
Jury Act

CASES CITED: R v Locchi (1991) 22 NSWLR 309

PARTIES: Donna Maree Tennant
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/80

COUNSEL: P. E. Barrett - Crown
R. Cavanagh - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Nicholas Moier & Assoc. - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0528

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Berman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 10 February 2005

2006/80 CCAP

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
HOEBEN J
10 July 2006

Donna Maree TENNANT v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL I agree with James J.

2 JAMES J: Donna Maree Tennant appealed against her conviction after a trial in the District Court, on a charge that between 1 July 1999 and 24 September 2001 she knowingly took part in the supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, an offence under s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. She did not apply for leave to appeal against the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed on her, following her conviction.

The Crown case at the Trial

3 The Crown case at the trial was that the appellant had knowingly taken part in the supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine by knowingly taking part in acquisitions of quantities of the drug, totalling more than the large commercial quantity of one kilogram, by her de facto husband Brett Harrison from a man named Richard Walsh and Walsh’s de facto wife Melinda Love, which were then used by Harrison in making supplies to his customers. An alternative Crown case, in the event of the Crown being unable to prove that the appellant had knowingly taken part in the supply of not less than a large commercial quantity of the drug, was that the appellant had knowingly taken part in the supply of some lesser quantity of the drug.

4 The principal Crown witness at the trial was Melinda Love, who had been granted immunity from prosecution by the Attorney-General.

5 Ms Love gave evidence of contacts between herself and Harrison and the appellant in connection with the supply of drugs. On the first occasion on which she had gone to Harrison’s and the appellant’s house to supply Harrison with drugs the appellant had been present. Subsequently, Ms Love had received telephone calls from the appellant, as well as from Harrison, which Ms Love said were disguised requests to be supplied with drugs. On some occasions the appellant had come to Ms Love’s house and collected drugs. On some occasions when Ms Love had…

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 Tennant v R

Details

AGLC: Tennant v R [2006] NSWCCA 208
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 208
Decision Date: 10 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tennant v R, the appellant, Tennant, was convicted of various criminal offences and appealed against his conviction. The appeal focused on procedural errors during the trial, particularly concerning the order in which counsel addressed the jury during their retirement to deliberate on the verdict. Tennant's legal team argued that the judge should have allowed the defence counsel to address the jury first, rather than the prosecution counsel. They contended that this procedural error might have prejudiced the jury against Tennant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the order in which counsel addressed the jury constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court had to consider whether the sequence of addresses could have influenced the jury's impartiality and whether this warranted a new trial. The court also needed to determine if the separation of the jury during their retirement was correctly managed and if it complied with legal standards.

The court found that the order in which counsel addressed the jury did not result in a miscarriage of justice. It reasoned that the sequence of addresses did not unduly influence the jury's impartiality, as the jury was instructed to consider all evidence impartially. The court further held that the separation of the jury during their retirement was appropriately handled, and there was no indication that this process compromised the integrity of the jury's deliberations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction remained upheld.

Orders