Villis v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 74

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Villis v R [2014] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates: 15 April 2014
Decision date: 13 May 2014
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Bellew J at [40]
Decision:
1. Appeal against conviction upheld.
2. Conviction quashed.
3. Retrial ordered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - supply not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine - whether trial judge erred in not discharging jury following an application for discharge on the basis that a prosecution witness had given evidence amounting to the bad character of the appellant - whether verdict of the jury was reached through pressure of time restraints rather than proper deliberation
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Black v R [1993] HCA 71; 179 CLR 44
Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65
Hunt v R [2011] NSWCCA 152
Nagti v R [2008] NSWCCA 3
Nudd v R [2006] HCA 9; (2006) 162 A Crim R 301
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Villis (Appellant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
S Kluss (Appellant)
S Herbert (Crown)
Solicitors:
LD Lock (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2011/230879
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2012-11-16 00:00:00

Before:

Coorey DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/230879

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with Fullerton J.

FULLERTON J: By Notice of Appeal dated 18 October 2013 the appellant appealed his conviction following a jury trial in the District Court on one count of supply of not less than a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). On 22 February 2013 he was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. There was no application for leave to appeal the sentence.

On 15 April 2014 the appeal against conviction was upheld and the conviction quashed. An order was made for a retrial. What follows are my reasons for joining in the making of those orders.

There were three filed grounds of appeal although only grounds 2 and 3 were ultimately pressed on the hearing of the appeal as follows:

Ground 2: The trial judge erred in not discharging the jury following an application for discharge on the basis that a prosecution witness had given evidence amounting to the bad character of the appellant.

Ground 3: The verdict of the jury should be set aside because it appears that a unanimous verdict was reached through pressure of time restraints rather than proper deliberation.

I propose to deal with the grounds in reverse order since it was his Honour's directions delivered in the course of the jury's deliberations that, in my view, undermined the integrity of the verdict such that the conviction could not be allowed to stand. I would dismiss the second ground of appeal.

It is not necessary to detail the evidence led at trial…

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 Villis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Villis v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 74
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 74
Decision Date: 13 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Villis v The Queen, the appellant, Villis, sought to appeal his conviction for supplying a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in not discharging the jury after an application was made on the basis that a prosecution witness had given evidence amounting to the bad character of the appellant. Additionally, the court had to determine if the jury's verdict was reached due to time constraints rather than proper deliberation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge should have discharged the jury as the evidence presented by the prosecution witness was considered to be evidence of the appellant's bad character. The appellant submitted that such evidence was inadmissible and that the trial judge's failure to discharge the jury amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the appellant contended that the jury's verdict was influenced by the time restraints placed upon them, rather than a proper and thorough deliberation of the evidence presented.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in not discharging the jury as the evidence presented by the prosecution witness was not solely based on the appellant's bad character, but rather on the witness's observations of the appellant's conduct. The court held that the evidence was relevant and admissible in determining the appellant's guilt. Additionally, the court found that the jury's verdict was reached through proper deliberation and not due to time constraints. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction.

Orders