R v Senthilvadevel [2018] NSWDC 33

R v Senthilvadevel [2018] NSWDC 33

The accused's act of staying at home, or arranging for a parent to stay at home, after being told the consignment had been dispatched and was on its way, and after sufficient time had elapsed for it to arrive, was solely for the purpose of receiving the consignment and taking it into possession. That conduct was sufficiently proximate and more than merely preparatory to the alleged attempt, and it was not material that the consignment never proceeded beyond Customs Service or AFP premises.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Attempting to Possess a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug, Namely Heroin / Application for Verdict by Direction After the Crown Closed Its Case
Outcome
Application for verdict by direction refused.
Legal Topics
['attempt' 'verdict by Direction' 'border Controlled Drugs' 'actus Reus' 'physical Impossibility']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['attempt' 'verdict by Direction' 'border Controlled Drugs' 'actus Reus' 'physical Impossibility']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Attempting to Possess a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug, Namely Heroin / Application for Verdict by Direction After the Crown Closed Its Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's conduct was more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence of attempting to possess a border controlled drug." 'Whether the alleged attempt lacked sufficient proximity because the drugs were intercepted and were not to be delivered to the accused at his home.']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused's act of staying at home, or arranging for a parent to stay at home, after being told the consignment had been dispatched and was on its way, and after sufficient time had elapsed for it to arrive, was solely for the purpose of receiving the consignment and taking it into possession. That conduct was sufficiently proximate and more than merely preparatory to the alleged attempt, and it was not material that the consignment never proceeded beyond Customs Service or AFP premises.

Court Disposition

Application for verdict by direction refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for verdict by direction refused.']