Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51

Handlen v The Queen [2011] HCA 51

Because the trial was conducted and left to the jury on a basis (joint criminal enterprise) not provided for by law for substantive Commonwealth offences, and because directions focused the jury on participation in a group exercise rather than the individual accuseds’ conduct under s 11.2, this constituted a fundamental error. The error denied the appellants' right to be convicted only for conduct amounting to aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring importation per s 11.2, and thus the proviso under s 668E(1A) Criminal Code (Q) could not be applied. The convictions were quashed and new trials ordered.

Parties
Appellant: Dale Christopher Handlen; Appellant: Dennis Paul Paddison; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (criminal) / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; new trials ordered.
Legal Topics
Jury Misdirection, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Accessorial Liability, Application of Proviso, Importation of Border Controlled Drugs, Trial by Jury
Criminal Law Jury Misdirection Joint Criminal Enterprise Accessorial Liability Application of Proviso Importation of Border Controlled Drugs Trial by Jury

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 3 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dale Christopher Handlen

Appellant

Dennis Paul Paddison

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (criminal) / High Court Appeal From Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether joint criminal enterprise liability existed for substantive Commonwealth offences under the Criminal Code (Cth) at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether misdirection to the jury on the basis of joint criminal enterprise constituted a fundamental procedural error
  3. 3 Whether the application of the proviso in s 668E(1A) of Criminal Code (Q) was permissible where the trial was conducted on a basis not known to law

Ratio Decidendi

Because the trial was conducted and left to the jury on a basis (joint criminal enterprise) not provided for by law for substantive Commonwealth offences, and because directions focused the jury on participation in a group exercise rather than the individual accuseds’ conduct under s 11.2, this constituted a fundamental error. The error denied the appellants' right to be convicted only for conduct amounting to aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring importation per s 11.2, and thus the proviso under s 668E(1A) Criminal Code (Q) could not be applied. The convictions were quashed and new trials ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions quashed; new trials ordered.

Orders

  • Set aside the order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland made on 23 December 2010.
  • Order that the appeal to that Court be allowed.