WILLIAMS -v- OLSEN [1999] WASCA 114

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 114
Case No:	SJA:1074/1999	Heard:	21 JULY 1999
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	6/08/99
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed Conviction quashed
PDF Version

Parties:	RAYMOND JOHN WILLIAMS JESS OLSEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Possession of heroin Relevance of involvement in possible sale earlier in day Other person in vehicle in possession of heroin Circumstantial evidence Whether guilt the only inference from facts Whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487 Vrisakis v ASC (1993) 9 WAR 395 Cumming (1995) 86 A Crim R 156 Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 65 A Crim R 12 Greaves v Aikman (1994) 74 A Crim R 370 Guney (1998) 2 Cr App R 242 Hawkins v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970194; 1 May 1997 Huynh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950689; 1 December 1995 Korculanic v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980437; 16 July 1998 Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460 R v Edwards [1998] Crim L R 298 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 580 The Queen v Gibson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980308; 5 June 1998

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : WILLIAMS -v- OLSEN [1999] WASCA 114 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 21 JULY 1999 DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1074 of 1999 BETWEEN : RAYMOND JOHN WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

JESS OLSEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Possession of heroin - Relevance of involvement in possible sale earlier in day - Other person in vehicle in possession of heroin - Circumstantial evidence - Whether guilt the only inference from facts - Whether conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J D Allanson

Respondent : Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Appellant : Marcus Wood-Gush & Associates

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
Vrisakis v ASC (1993) 9 WAR 395

Case(s) also cited:

Cumming (1995) 86 A Crim R 156
Grbic v Pitkethly (1992) 65 A Crim R 12
Greaves v Aikman (1994) 74 A Crim R 370
Guney (1998) 2 Cr App R 242
Hawkins v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 970194; 1 May 1997
Huynh v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950689; 1 December 1995
Korculanic v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980437; 16 July 1998
Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460
R v Edwards [1998] Crim L R 298
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 580
The Queen v Gibson, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980308; 5 June 1998

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J: On Melbourne Cup Day (4 November 1998) the appellant was sitting in…

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 Williams v Olsen

Details

AGLC: Williams v Olsen [1999] WASCA 114
Case: [1999] WASCA 114
Decision Date: 6 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Williams, was convicted of possessing heroin with intent to supply it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Williams was in a vehicle with another person, Olsen, when both were found with heroin. Olsen admitted to possession and stated the heroin was not Williams's. The appeal was centred around the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of Williams.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove Williams's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court had to determine if the involvement of Williams in a possible earlier sale of heroin and his presence in the vehicle with Olsen and the heroin could, together, establish his possession of the heroin with intent to supply. The court also considered whether the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory given the evidence presented.

The court found that the evidence did not definitively prove Williams's possession of the heroin with intent to supply it. The circumstantial evidence, while suggestive, did not exclude the reasonable possibility that Olsen alone was in possession of the heroin. The court emphasised that for a conviction to be upheld, the guilt of the accused must be the only inference reasonably open on the evidence. In this case, the evidence allowed for other reasonable inferences, thus making the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

Conviction quashed

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.