White v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 329

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: White v R [2014] NSWCCA 329
Hearing dates: 24 November 2014
Decision date: 19 December 2014
Before: Hidden J at [1]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against conviction granted, appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction after plea of guilty - ongoing supply of methylamphetamine - applicant involved in supply of drug to undercover officer on three occasions - no evidence of financial material benefit to him on two occasions
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited: Dyers v The Queen [2002] HCA 45, 210 CLR 285
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Regina v Jackson [2004] NSWCCA 110
Texts Cited: Legislative Assembly of NSW: Hansard: 7 May 1998 at 4689, 4690
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jamie Hoby White (applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
C Bruce SC (applicant)
G Rowling (Crown)
Solicitors:
S E O'Connor - Legal Aid NSW (applicant)
J Pheils - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/220739
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2014-04-03 00:00:00

Before:

Craigie DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/220739

Judgment

HIDDEN J: The applicant, Jamie Hoby White, pleaded guilty in the District Court to a charge of supplying a prohibited drug, methylamphetamine, on an ongoing basis, an offence under s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. The proceedings in this court began as an application for leave to appeal against sentence. However, at the hearing of the matter leave was sought to appeal against the conviction. A summary of the facts will explain why that application was made.

Facts

There was an agreed statement of facts, disclosing that in June 2013 two undercover operatives were investigating the supply of methylamphetamine in the Telopea area. On 5 June, one of those operatives telephoned a friend of the applicant, Ms Kristy Alderton, to enquire whether she knew anyone who could sell him some of the drug. Ms Alderton put him in touch with the applicant. They met, and the officer supplied the applicant with $150 to purchase a quantity of the drug. Put shortly, the applicant purchased the drug from a supplier recently known to him, Rabee El Samad, using that money, met with the officer and handed the drug to him. Upon analysis, there was found to be .25 grams of methylamphetamine with a purity of 82.5%.

Later the same day, another undercover officer met with the applicant. Again put shortly, the officer supplied the applicant with $100, the applicant used it to purchase some of the drug from Mr El Samad, and gave it to the officer. On this occasion there was .05 grams of methylamphetamine.

On 27 June, that second officer initiated a similar transaction. On this occasion he gave the applicant $150 and the applicant used it to buy more of the drug from Mr El Samad, which he passed…

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 White v The Queen

Details

AGLC: White v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 329
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 329
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of White v The Queen involved the applicant, White, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of ongoing supply of methylamphetamine. The dispute centred around whether the conviction should stand, particularly in light of the applicant's involvement in supplying the drug to an undercover officer on three separate occasions. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the applicant's plea of guilty could be upheld given the specifics of the transactions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had indeed supplied methylamphetamine to an undercover officer on three occasions and if there was a sufficient basis for the conviction despite the absence of evidence indicating that he received financial benefit from two of the transactions. The court needed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence and the nature of the applicant's involvement in the drug supply chain. This required a nuanced understanding of the legal standards governing convictions based on guilty pleas and the particular circumstances surrounding the drug transactions.

The court found that while the applicant had supplied methylamphetamine to an undercover officer on three occasions, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he received a financial benefit from two of those transactions. This distinction was crucial in determining the legality of the conviction. The court emphasised that for a conviction to stand, there must be clear evidence of financial material benefit accruing to the defendant from the illegal activity. Given that such evidence was lacking in two of the transactions, the court ruled that the conviction could not be sustained. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a re-trial.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a re-trial ordered. The decision underscored the importance of evidence of financial material benefit in drug supply cases and highlighted the need for thorough scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding each transaction when considering the validity of a guilty plea.

Orders