Chapman v R [2013] NSWCCA 91

Chapman v R [2013] NSWCCA 91

Because the Crown conceded that it relied only on deemed supply and not on possession of the five tablets in the utility for the purposes of supply, any guilty verdict on count 1 would require the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant possessed at least the tablets in the kitchen pantry. That concession removed any arguable duplicity, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Notice of Motion to Quash Count 1 of the Indictment for Duplicity
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['duplicity in Indictment' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'deemed Supply' 'jury Unanimity' 'alternative Factual Bases of Liability']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'drug Offences'] ['duplicity in Indictment' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'deemed Supply' 'jury Unanimity' 'alternative Factual Bases of Liability']

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 Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal Pursuant to S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Notice of Motion to Quash Count 1 of the Indictment for Duplicity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether count 1 of the indictment charging supply of methylamphetamine was bad for duplicity because it could encompass alternative factual bases of liability.' 'Whether a guilty verdict could lack the requisite jury consensus if some jurors relied on possession of tablets in the kitchen pantry and others relied on possession of tablets in the utility for the purposes of supply.' 'Whether the analogy with manslaughter supported permitting alternative bases of liability within one count.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Crown conceded that it relied only on deemed supply and not on possession of the five tablets in the utility for the purposes of supply, any guilty verdict on count 1 would require the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant possessed at least the tablets in the kitchen pantry. That concession removed any arguable duplicity, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend time for filing the application for leave to appeal.' 'Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']