Regina v Howard [2005] NSWCCA 25

Regina v Howard [2005] NSWCCA 25

The Crown had to prove that the cannabis was harvested and in the appellant's possession before he left Australia on 15 May 2001. Mr Wassell's evidence estimating the time since harvest was inadmissible because his experience and observations did not establish specialised knowledge capable of supporting that opinion, and it was not admissible as lay opinion under s 78. Without that evidence, it was not open to the jury to find guilt, and the trial judge should have rejected the evidence and directed a verdict of not guilty.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction And, Alternatively, Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; verdict and judgment of acquittal entered.
Legal Topics
['deemed Supply of Cannabis' 'possession of Traffickable Quantity' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['deemed Supply of Cannabis' 'possession of Traffickable Quantity' 'expert Opinion Evidence' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence Directions' 'tendency 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

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction And, Alternatively, Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from Gregory Wassell estimating when cannabis had been harvested was admissible as expert opinion evidence.' 'Whether, without admissible evidence of the age of the cannabis, the verdict was open on the evidence.' 'Whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury that it had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the cannabis was harvested before the appellant left Australia on 15 May 2001.' 'Whether evidence from Mr Sharp was tendency evidence or credit evidence and whether the jury required a limiting direction.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown had to prove that the cannabis was harvested and in the appellant's possession before he left Australia on 15 May 2001. Mr Wassell's evidence estimating the time since harvest was inadmissible because his experience and observations did not establish specialised knowledge capable of supporting that opinion, and it was not admissible as lay opinion under s 78. Without that evidence, it was not open to the jury to find guilt, and the trial judge should have rejected the evidence and directed a verdict of not guilty.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence quashed; verdict and judgment of acquittal entered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Conviction and sentence quashed.' 'Verdict and judgment of acquittal entered.']