Rosenfeld v R [2009] NSWCCA 74

Rosenfeld v R [2009] NSWCCA 74

Although one direction may have been confusing to a limited degree because recklessness was left at large, the directions as a whole, including the later redirection, made clear that the appellant had to intend to import the substance and that recklessness related to whether that substance was a prohibited substance. The only real issue at trial was whether the appellant knew that MDMA was in the tanks, and the jury was appropriately directed. In any event, the Crown case was overwhelming, so the appeal would have been dismissed even if error had been shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['importation of Border Controlled Drug' 'commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'jury Directions' 'fault Elements' 'intention' 'recklessness' 'absolute Liability' 'proviso']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['importation of Border Controlled Drug' 'commercial Quantity of Mdma' 'jury Directions' 'fault Elements' 'intention' 'recklessness' 'absolute Liability' 'proviso']

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 Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in failing to correctly direct the jury in relation to the mental element of the offence under s 307.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth).' 'Whether the jury may have been confused about whether the appellant had to intend to import the hot water systems or the substance inside them.' 'Whether references to recklessness were wrongly left at large rather than confined to whether the substance was a border controlled drug.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although one direction may have been confusing to a limited degree because recklessness was left at large, the directions as a whole, including the later redirection, made clear that the appellant had to intend to import the substance and that recklessness related to whether that substance was a prohibited substance. The only real issue at trial was whether the appellant knew that MDMA was in the tanks, and the jury was appropriately directed. In any event, the Crown case was overwhelming, so the appeal would have been dismissed even if error had been shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']