Woods v R - [2017] NSWCCA 5

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Woods v R [2017] NSWCCA 5
Hearing dates: 31 August 2016Written submissions 4 October 2016
Date of orders: 31 August 2016
Decision date: 02 February 2017
Before: Price J at [1]
Davies J at [1]
Garling J at [1]
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) Vacate judgment of Syme DCJ on 22 January 2016.
(3) Indictment quashed.
(4) Certificate under s 2(1)(a) of Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) granted to the applicant up to and including the judgment of Syme DCJ on 22 January 2016.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – criminal law –whether dextromethorphan was a prohibited drug under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – Crown concession – indictment quashed
CRIMINAL LAW – costs – application for certificate under s 2(1)(a) of Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) – whether applicant was “discharged in relation to offence concerned” – certificate granted
Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), ss 2, 3
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5F(3)(b)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 3, 25(2), sch 1
Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966 (NSW), s 8
Cases Cited: DAO v R (No 3) [2016] NSWCCA 282
Director of Public Prosecutions v Howard (2005) 64 NSWLR 139; [2005] NSWSC 987
Nadilo v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 35 NSWLR 738; (1995) 77 A Crim R 537
Texts Cited: Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Woods (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M G McHugh SC and M J Gleeson (Applicant)
N J Adams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Armstrong Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/00169795
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 January 2016

Before:

Syme DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/00107087; 2014/00169795

Judgment

THE COURT: Matthew Woods (“the applicant”) and a co-accused, Phillip Kandarakis, had been arraigned in the District Court upon an indictment that between 20 March 2013 and 2 August 2013, at Barrack Heights, each knowingly took part in the supply of a prohibited drug, namely dextromethorphan, an isomer of methorphan, in an amount of 4,993 grams, being an amount not less than the large commercial quantity for that drug, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 (NSW) (“DMT Act”).
Before a jury was empanelled, the applicant asked Syme DCJ (“the judge”) to quash the indictment. The application was founded on the submission that dextromethorphan was not a prohibited drug under the DMT Act. After hearing evidence and argument, the judge rejected the challenge to the indictment.
The applicant appealed against the interlocutory judgment. The judge certified the judgment to be proper for determination on appeal, in accordance with s 5F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).
The sole ground of appeal was as follows:

“That her Honour erred in finding that dextromethorphan is a prohibited drug under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

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 Woods v R

Details

AGLC: Woods v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 5
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 5
Decision Date: 02 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods was charged with drug possession contrary to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The central issue was whether dextromethorphan, the substance found in Woods' possession, constituted a prohibited drug under the Act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crown conceded that dextromethorphan was not a prohibited drug, leading to the quashing of the indictment against Woods. Additionally, Woods applied for a certificate under section 2(1)(a) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), seeking reimbursement for legal costs. The court considered whether Woods was "discharged in relation to the offence concerned," ultimately granting the certificate and ordering that Woods' costs be paid.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the scope of the term "prohibited drug" within the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and determining the eligibility for a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW). The court examined the statutory language, legislative history, and relevant case law to resolve the first issue. Regarding the certificate, the court assessed whether Woods' discharge from the charge aligned with the statutory criteria, concluding that he qualified for reimbursement of his legal costs.

Orders