Walton v Butler - [2004] QCA 456

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Walton v Butler [2004] QCA 456

PARTIES:

MICHAEL JOHN WALTON
(appellant/applicant)
v
AARON BUTLER

(respondent/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 280 of 2004

DC No 150 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 November 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Williams JA, Philippides 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 with costs

CATCHWORDS:

ESTOPPEL – FORMER ADJUDICATION AND MATTERS OF RECORD OR QUASI RECORD - ISSUE ESTOPPEL – where in a search of applicant’s house police located a quantity of cannabis and a sum of $15,555 nearby – where applicant charged with possession of tainted property in magistrates court - whether the prosecution was estopped from relying on the presence of the cannabis to prove that the money was tainted property, by reason of the fact that in prior proceedings in the Supreme Court, at which the applicant pleaded guilty to possession of drugs, it was accepted by the prosecution in an agreed statement of facts that the cannabis was for personal use

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

Brown v Robinson [1960] SR (NSW) 297, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1, cited
Mraz v R (No 2) (1956) 96 CLR 62, considered
Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251, considered

R v Jerome [1964] Qd R 595, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant

R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ruddy Tomlins & Baxter for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

:McPHERSON JA On 23 July 2002, police accompanied by a “sniffer” dog carried out a search of a house at 24 Poole Street, Bowen, where the applicant Michael John Walton lived with his family. In the kitchen they located a receptacle and two bags containing cannabis. In the main bedroom they found several similarly marked clipseal bags containing money in amounts totalling $15,555. A cone or pipe was also found in the house. The quantity of cannabis seized amounted in all to 632 grams.

The applicant was charged on three separate complaints in the Magistrates Court with offences against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 of (1) possessing a dangerous drug, and (2) possessing a cone; (3) possession of $15,555 that might reasonably be suspected of being tainted property under s 92(1) of the Crimes (Confiscation) Act 1989. Because the quantity of cannabis exceeded 500 grams, an ex officio indictment no SCR 7103 was presented in the Supreme Court at Townsville charging the applicant with the first two of these three counts under the Drugs Misuse Act. It came before Cullinane J on 27 February 2003, whereupon the applicant on being arraigned pleaded guilty to both charges. In sentencing him to perform a period of community service, his…

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 Walton v Butler

Details

AGLC: Walton v Butler [2004] QCA 456
Case: [2004] QCA 456
Decision Date: 26 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walton v Butler involved a dispute in which the applicant, Walton, sought to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to the characterisation of a sum of money as tainted property. The matter was brought before the court following the discovery of a quantity of cannabis and the sum of $15,555 during a police search of Walton’s home. Walton was subsequently charged with possession of tainted property in the magistrates court. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution was estopped from relying on the presence of the cannabis to prove that the money was tainted property, given that in a prior proceeding in the Supreme Court, the prosecution had accepted in an agreed statement of facts that the cannabis was for personal use.

The court considered the doctrine of estoppel, particularly issue estoppel, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has been conclusively determined in a previous proceeding. The court examined whether the previous acceptance by the prosecution that the cannabis was for personal use constituted a conclusive determination that could estop the prosecution from asserting otherwise in the current proceedings. The court found that the acceptance of the personal use of the cannabis in the previous proceeding did not amount to a conclusive determination on the matter. The court held that the prosecution was not estopped from asserting that the presence of the cannabis indicated that the money was tainted property. The court reasoned that the previous proceeding did not involve a determination of the characterisation of the money as tainted property and that the issue of the characterisation of the money had not been conclusively determined in the prior proceeding.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the court ordered that costs be paid by the applicant. The court concluded that the doctrine of estoppel did not apply to prevent the prosecution from relying on the presence of the cannabis to prove that the money was tainted property. The court held that the prosecution was not estopped from asserting this position, and that the matter was not suitable for appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Walton v Butler [2004] QCA 456
PARTIES:	MICHAEL JOHN WALTON (appellant/applicant) v AARON BUTLER (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 280 of 2004 DC No 150 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 November 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Williams JA, Philippides 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 with costs
CATCHWORDS:	ESTOPPEL – FORMER ADJUDICATION AND MATTERS OF RECORD OR QUASI RECORD - ISSUE ESTOPPEL – where in a search of applicant’s house police located a quantity of cannabis and a sum of $15,555 nearby – where applicant charged with possession of tainted property in magistrates court - whether the prosecution was estopped from relying on the presence of the cannabis to prove that the money was tainted property, by reason of the fact that in prior proceedings in the Supreme Court, at which the applicant pleaded guilty to possession of drugs, it was accepted by the prosecution in an agreed statement of facts that the cannabis was for personal use Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C Brown v Robinson [1960] SR (NSW) 297, cited Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys [1977] AC 1, cited Mraz v R (No 2) (1956) 96 CLR 62, considered Rogers v R (1994) 181 CLR 251, considered R v Jerome [1964] Qd R 595, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ruddy Tomlins & Baxter for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent