Till v Johns - [2004] QCA 451

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451

PARTIES:

PETER TILL
(applicant/applicant)
v
ANTHONY JOHNS (SERGEANT OF POLICE)
(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 209 of 2004
DC No 1 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL -– APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – PARTICULAR CASES – where applicant pleaded guilty to charges of production and possession of cannabis sativa – where pleas entered in an exercise of free choice – whether pleas should be set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – DEFENCE MATTERS – IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF LAW – where applicant claims the Bible gives him an entitlement to eat cannabis sativa – whether applicant could rely on defence under s 22(2) of Criminal Code for charges of production and possession of cannabis sativa

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222(2)(c)

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: This is an application under s 118(3) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) for leave to appeal from a decision of a District Court judge refusing the applicant, Mr Till's application to extend time within which to appeal under s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) against his conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court.

Mr Till pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to three charges under the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) involving the production and possession of a dangerous drug cannabis sativa and the possession of things used in producing it. Despite his plea of guilty, he argued before the District Court judge and again before this Court that he believed he ought not to have been charged or convicted of the offences because the Bible authorised him to eat herbs; cannabis sativa is a herb; he ate, (not smoked), cannabis sativa for pain relief; he had done nothing wrong.

Assuming, (without deciding), that s 222(2)(c) of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)[1] did not preclude him from arguing that his pleas of guilty should be set aside,[2] the next hurdle for Mr Till is that there was no evidence before the District Court or this Court that his pleas of guilty were anything other than free and informed. The transcript records him pleading guilty to each charge. The acting magistrate asked, "And that plea of guilty is of your own free will?" to which Mr Till responded,…

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 Till v Johns

Details

AGLC: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451
Case: [2004] QCA 451
Decision Date: 26 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Till was convicted in the County Court of Victoria for producing and possessing cannabis sativa. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, seeking to set aside his pleas of guilty. Till argued that his pleas were not entered freely as he believed he was entitled to consume and possess cannabis sativa under the Bible. The court was required to determine whether Till's pleas could be set aside and whether he could rely on a defence of mistake of law under s 22(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the circumstances in which Till entered his pleas and found that they were indeed entered freely, voluntarily, and with an understanding of the consequences. The court further examined Till's defence of mistake of law, noting that the law clearly prohibits the possession and production of cannabis sativa, and that Till's belief that the Bible entitles him to consume and possess it does not negate the illegality of his actions. The court concluded that Till's claims did not provide a sufficient basis to set aside his pleas or to establish a valid defence under s 22(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Till's application for leave to appeal. The court found that there was no error in the County Court's handling of Till's pleas or in its assessment of his defence. The convictions for producing and possessing cannabis sativa were therefore upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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.

CITATION:	Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451
PARTIES:	PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY JOHNS (SERGEANT OF POLICE) (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL -– APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – PARTICULAR CASES – where applicant pleaded guilty to charges of production and possession of cannabis sativa – where pleas entered in an exercise of free choice – whether pleas should be set aside CRIMINAL LAW – DEFENCE MATTERS – IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE OF LAW – where applicant claims the Bible gives him an entitlement to eat cannabis sativa – whether applicant could rely on defence under s 22(2) of Criminal Code for charges of production and possession of cannabis sativa District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222(2)(c) Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent