R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1046

R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1046

The application was refused because, taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence capable of establishing the elements of count 1, including evidence from recorded conversations and other circumstances that the accused intended to import pseudoephedrine or a border controlled precursor and that the accused and at least one other party believed another person intended to use some of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug. It was also open to the jury to find that the importation had not been completed by 21 May 2008 and that the alleged conspiracy was still on foot.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for a Directed Verdict on Count 1 After the Crown Case Closed
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Import a Border Controlled Precursor' 'directed Verdict' 'commonwealth Criminal Code' 'importation of Pseudoephedrine' 'manufacture of Controlled Drugs']
['criminal Law'] ['conspiracy to Import a Border Controlled Precursor' 'directed Verdict' 'commonwealth Criminal Code' 'importation of Pseudoephedrine' 'manufacture of Controlled Drugs']

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 / Application for a Directed Verdict on Count 1 After the Crown Case Closed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was evidence capable of persuading the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to import a border controlled precursor or pseudoephedrine while any conspiracy was on foot.' 'Whether, under section 307.11(1)(b)(ii) read with section 11.5 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, there was evidence that the accused and at least one other party to the agreement believed that another person intended to use at least some of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug.' 'Whether the importation had been completed before the 21 May 2008 conversation relied on by the Crown.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because, taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence capable of establishing the elements of count 1, including evidence from recorded conversations and other circumstances that the accused intended to import pseudoephedrine or a border controlled precursor and that the accused and at least one other party believed another person intended to use some of the substance to manufacture a controlled drug. It was also open to the jury to find that the importation had not been completed by 21 May 2008 and that the alleged conspiracy was still on foot.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application for a directed verdict is refused']