BOLUS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 182

BOLUS v REGINA [2006] NSWCCA 182

The prosecutor's reference to consciousness of guilt meant that an Edwards direction should have been given, but leave under Rule 4 was declined because defence counsel appeared to have made a conscious and informed tactical decision not to seek a redirection and the Crown case was strong. The verdict was not unreasonable because, on the whole of the evidence, including the appellant's admitted assistance in concealing Lawrence's involvement, recorded conversations, cash deposits, purchase arrangements, storage discussions and alleged provision of charts, it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was aware of the true nature of the drug importation...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Conspiracy to Import Into Australia a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'conspiracy to Import Cocaine' 'consciousness of Guilt Directions' 'edwards Direction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'rule 4' 'recorded Conversations' 'record of Interview']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'conspiracy to Import Cocaine' 'consciousness of Guilt Directions' 'edwards Direction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'rule 4' 'recorded Conversations' 'record of Interview']

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 for Conspiracy to Import Into Australia a Commercial Quantity of Cocaine / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury about evidence relied upon by the Crown as evidence of the appellant's consciousness of guilt." 'Whether leave under Rule 4 should be granted where no request for such a direction was made at trial.' "Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence." 'Whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to infer that the appellant knew of the planned drug importation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecutor's reference to consciousness of guilt meant that an Edwards direction should have been given, but leave under Rule 4 was declined because defence counsel appeared to have made a conscious and informed tactical decision not to seek a redirection and the Crown case was strong. The verdict was not unreasonable because, on the whole of the evidence, including the appellant's admitted assistance in concealing Lawrence's involvement, recorded conversations, cash deposits, purchase arrangements, storage discussions and alleged provision of charts, it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was aware of the true nature of the drug importation...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave pursuant to Rule 4 declined in relation to ground 1.' 'Ground 2 failed.' 'Appeal dismissed.']