Davis v The Queen [1991] HCA 44

Davis v The Queen [1991] HCA 44

Special leave was refused because, on the applicant's own account, she knowingly assisted her de facto husband in obtaining possession of a drum containing in excess of 9 kg of cannabis, there was no question of compulsion, and the quantity pointed irresistibly to a commercial purpose; in those circumstances the application of the proviso did not give rise to a question of law appropriate for special leave and the interests of the administration of justice did not require consideration by the High Court. McHugh J also refused special leave because the differing reasons of the majority in the Court of Criminal Appeal meant the decision raised no question of general principle.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (wa) Dismissing an Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['possession of Cannabis With Intent to Sell or Supply' 'application of the Proviso' 'misdirection to Jury' 'aiding and Abetting' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['possession of Cannabis With Intent to Sell or Supply' 'application of the Proviso' 'misdirection to Jury' 'aiding and Abetting' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Special Leave Application / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal (wa) Dismissing an Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal (WA) erred in applying the proviso to s 689(1) of the Criminal Code WA after finding that the trial judge misdirected the jury.' "Whether the applicant's conduct amounted to guilt of the offence either as a principal offender under s 7 of the Criminal Code WA or as a principal in the second degree." 'Whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal raised a question of law or general principle appropriate for a grant of special leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because, on the applicant's own account, she knowingly assisted her de facto husband in obtaining possession of a drum containing in excess of 9 kg of cannabis, there was no question of compulsion, and the quantity pointed irresistibly to a commercial purpose; in those circumstances the application of the proviso did not give rise to a question of law appropriate for special leave and the interests of the administration of justice did not require consideration by the High Court. McHugh J also refused special leave because the differing reasons of the majority in the Court of Criminal Appeal meant the decision raised no question of general principle.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave to appeal refused']