R v Shafiei [2000] NSWCCA 254

R v Shafiei [2000] NSWCCA 254

Because there was no evidence before the jury that the opium actually delivered to and possessed by the appellant was not less than the trafficable quantity, and because the trial judge directed the jury on the incorrect basis that the appellant could be treated as possessing the whole imported quantity so long as some opium remained in the parcel, the verdict could not be supported and a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave Pursuant to Rule 4 and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Leave granted; appeal allowed; jury verdict set aside; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'trafficable Quantity' 'controlled Delivery Samples' 'jury Misdirection' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']
['criminal Law' 'customs and Narcotics' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'trafficable Quantity' 'controlled Delivery Samples' 'jury Misdirection' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'new Trial']

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 Pursuant to Rule 4 and Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted pursuant to rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 in relation to the trial judge's direction." 'Whether the trial judge incorrectly directed the jury that, provided there was some opium in the parcel, the recipient was fixed with liability for the whole imported quantity.' 'Whether there was evidence before the jury that not less than the trafficable quantity of opium was delivered to and possessed by the appellant on 18 September 1997.' 'Whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed under the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no evidence before the jury that the opium actually delivered to and possessed by the appellant was not less than the trafficable quantity, and because the trial judge directed the jury on the incorrect basis that the appellant could be treated as possessing the whole imported quantity so long as some opium remained in the parcel, the verdict could not be supported and a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred.

Court Disposition

Leave granted; appeal allowed; jury verdict set aside; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted pursuant to rule 4.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Verdict of the jury of 14 April 1999 is set aside.' 'There is to be a new trial.']