Boutros v R [2015] NSWCCA 171

Boutros v R [2015] NSWCCA 171

The first ground failed because it rested on a false premise: the Crown's case, from opening through final address, included the appellant's attendance at the Liverpool Road premises for the purpose of taking delivery of the package as conduct more than merely preparatory, and was not confined to his words to the undercover delivery driver. There was therefore no change in the Crown case. The second ground failed because the intercepted telephone conversations and other evidence amply supported findings that the appellant knew the package contained cocaine, intended to possess it, and attended and remained at the premises for that purpose; it was open to the jury to convict and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['attempt to Possess a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'cocaine' 'conduct More Than Merely Preparatory' 'whether Trial Judge Left a Different Factual Basis for Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals' 'drug Offences' 'evidence'] ['attempt to Possess a Marketable Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug' 'cocaine' 'conduct More Than Merely Preparatory' 'whether Trial Judge Left a Different Factual Basis for Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence']

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

Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From District Court Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge left to the jury a factual basis for conviction different from the case advanced by the Crown.' 'Whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first ground failed because it rested on a false premise: the Crown's case, from opening through final address, included the appellant's attendance at the Liverpool Road premises for the purpose of taking delivery of the package as conduct more than merely preparatory, and was not confined to his words to the undercover delivery driver. There was therefore no change in the Crown case. The second ground failed because the intercepted telephone conversations and other evidence amply supported findings that the appellant knew the package contained cocaine, intended to possess it, and attended and remained at the premises for that purpose; it was open to the jury to convict and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.']