Till v. Wheeler - [2008] QDC 74

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Till v Wheeler [2008] QDC 74

PARTIES:

PETER TILL

Appellant

AND

NATHAN WHEELER

Respondent

PETER TILL

Appellant

AND

ETHAN CARL WILLIAMS

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 1680/07, Appeal 2921/07

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Appeals

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 March 2008

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Appeals dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Drug offences – possession of dangerous drugs – not confined to possession in connection with trafficking.

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction – immunity of defendant – sovereign immunity.

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 s 9.

Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 ss 36, 40.

Anglo Czechoslovak and Prague Credit Bank v Janssen [1943] VLR 185 – cited.
Bennett v Minister for Public Works (NSW) (1908) 7 CLR 372 – applied.
Duff v R (1979) 28 ALR 663 – cited.
Hanson v Barwise [1930] St R Qd 285 – cited.
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 – applied.
Mighell v Sultan of Johore [1894] 1 QB 149 – applied.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 61 – cited.
Silk Bros Pty Ltd v State Electricity Commission (1943) 67 CLR 1 – applied.
Tabe v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1890 – cited.
The Arantzazu Mendi [1939] AC 256 – applied.
Van Heyningen v Netherlands-Indies Government [1949] St R Qd 54 – applied.

COUNSEL:

Unidentified representative for the appellant

Z Rutherford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant was not represented

Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

On 14 June 2007 the appellant was found guilty after a summary trial of the offence of possession of a dangerous drug, namely cannabis sativa. A conviction was recorded and he was ordered to perform 40 hours community service. On 28 September 2007 the appellant was again convicted in the magistrates court of one count of possession of a dangerous drug, namely cannabis sativa. A conviction was recorded and he was sentenced to two months imprisonment suspended forthwith with an operational period of 12 months.

By a notice of appeal filed 15 June 2007 the appellant appealed under s 222 of the Justices Act against conviction and sentence in respect of the first conviction. The grounds of appeal were:

“Error of law – verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence – unsafe and unsatisfactory – failed to properly construe Drugs Misuse Act – failed to find the defendant had justification or excuse – failed to recognise the defendant’s common law rights – failed to accept the valid points in the defendant’s argument. Appeal against sentence and conviction.”

By notice of appeal filed 11 October 2007 the defendant appealed against the conviction in relation to the second conviction. The grounds of appeal stated in the notice of appeal were:

“Error of law – defendant has [unintelligible] informed consent – failed to properly construe DMA [sic – Drugs Misuse…

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. Wheeler

Details

AGLC: Till v Wheeler [2008] QDC 74
Case: [2008] QDC 74
Decision Date: 10 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard in Till v. Wheeler involved the appellant, Till, who was contesting his conviction for possession of dangerous drugs. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia. Till argued against the conviction on two grounds: first, that the offence of possession of dangerous drugs was limited to possession in connection with trafficking, and second, that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the respondent's sovereign immunity as a police officer.

The court was required to determine whether the offence of possession of dangerous drugs could be committed independently of trafficking. Additionally, the court had to assess the applicability of sovereign immunity to the respondent, who was a police officer at the time of the alleged offence.

In its reasoning, the court held that the offence of possession of dangerous drugs was not confined to possession in connection with trafficking. The court interpreted the relevant statutory provisions broadly to encompass possession of dangerous drugs in any context. Regarding sovereign immunity, the court found that it did not apply in this case because the respondent was not acting in an official capacity when the alleged offence occurred. The court concluded that the respondent's actions did not fall within the scope of sovereign immunity, and therefore, the court had jurisdiction over the case.

The appeals were dismissed, affirming Till's conviction. The court held that the statutory provisions allowed for a conviction based on possession of dangerous drugs outside the context of trafficking, and that the respondent's sovereign immunity did not prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Victoria maintained the original conviction and rejected Till's grounds for appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals 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 Wheeler [2008] QDC 74
PARTIES:	PETER TILL Appellant AND NATHAN WHEELER Respondent PETER TILL Appellant AND ETHAN CARL WILLIAMS Respondent
FILE NO/S:	Appeal 1680/07, Appeal 2921/07
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Appeals
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 April 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2008
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Appeals dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Drug offences – possession of dangerous drugs – not confined to possession in connection with trafficking. PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction – immunity of defendant – sovereign immunity. Drugs Misuse Act 1986 s 9. Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 ss 36, 40. Anglo Czechoslovak and Prague Credit Bank v Janssen [1943] VLR 185 – cited. Bennett v Minister for Public Works (NSW) (1908) 7 CLR 372 – applied. Duff v R (1979) 28 ALR 663 – cited. Hanson v Barwise [1930] St R Qd 285 – cited. Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 216 – applied. Mighell v Sultan of Johore [1894] 1 QB 149 – applied. R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte [2000] 1 AC 61 – cited. Silk Bros Pty Ltd v State Electricity Commission (1943) 67 CLR 1 – applied. Tabe v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1890 – cited. The Arantzazu Mendi [1939] AC 256 – applied. Van Heyningen v Netherlands-Indies Government [1949] St R Qd 54 – applied.
COUNSEL:	Unidentified representative for the appellant Z Rutherford for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant was not represented Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent