Regina v Quesada [2001] NSWCCA 216

Regina v Quesada [2001] NSWCCA 216

The psychologist's proposed evidence was inadmissible because the appellant's fear, apprehension, language difficulties and possible reasons for lying to police were matters the jury could assess from the primary facts and did not depend on specialised psychological knowledge. The trial judge's directions on lies, read as a whole, sufficiently required the jury to consider whether the lies were told from consciousness of guilt or for another reason. The conviction appeal therefore failed. However, although the ten-year head sentence was within the permissible range, the seven-year non-parole period was manifestly excessive in light of the usual range and the appellant's special...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed in part by reducing the non-parole period from seven years to six years; otherwise the ten-year sentence was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['drug Importation' 'admissibility of Expert Psychological Evidence' 'directions as to Lies' 'non Parole Period' 'guideline Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'sentencing' 'customs and Drug Importation'] ['drug Importation' 'admissibility of Expert Psychological Evidence' 'directions as to Lies' 'non Parole Period' 'guideline Sentencing']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence from a psychologist about the appellant's state of mind when she lied to police about touching the backpack." "Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning lies were sufficient." 'Whether the sentence, particularly the non-parole period of seven years, was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The psychologist's proposed evidence was inadmissible because the appellant's fear, apprehension, language difficulties and possible reasons for lying to police were matters the jury could assess from the primary facts and did not depend on specialised psychological knowledge. The trial judge's directions on lies, read as a whole, sufficiently required the jury to consider whether the lies were told from consciousness of guilt or for another reason. The conviction appeal therefore failed. However, although the ten-year head sentence was within the permissible range, the seven-year non-parole period was manifestly excessive in light of the usual range and the appellant's special...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence allowed in part by reducing the non-parole period from seven years to six years; otherwise the ten-year sentence was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence allowed in part.' 'Set aside the non-parole period of seven years and in lieu thereof order that the non-parole period to be served by the appellant be one of six years commencing on 9 December 1998 and...