Regina v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 243

Regina v Thompson [2000] NSWCCA 243

It was open to the jury to exclude the hypothesis that an unidentified police officer had found the drugs elsewhere and dishonestly placed them in the appellant's glass case. The tablets and cash were found in a container belonging to the appellant, there was no actual evidence supporting the planting hypothesis, no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Trafficable Quantity' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'police Search Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['supplying a Prohibited Drug' 'possession of Trafficable Quantity' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'police Search Evidence']

Source-derived case record

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 / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal After District Court Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable.' "Whether it was open to the jury to exclude as a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that an unidentified police officer placed the tablets in the appellant's glass case to incriminate him." 'Whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in possession of the tablets.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to exclude the hypothesis that an unidentified police officer had found the drugs elsewhere and dishonestly placed them in the appellant's glass case. The tablets and cash were found in a container belonging to the appellant, there was no actual evidence supporting the planting hypothesis, no evidence that Detective Sergeant Keegan's further search in the dining room had been prompted or could have been anticipated, and evidence concerning the absent officers did not make that hypothesis reasonably open. It was therefore open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal against conviction is dismissed.']