Regina v Marchione [2002] NSWCCA 131

Regina v Marchione [2002] NSWCCA 131

The appeal was within the Court's jurisdiction because it was from refusal of a permanent stay, not merely from a trial ruling that there was a case to answer. The primary judge did not err in concluding that the evidence was capable of establishing that the appellant supplied Sudafed or its generic equivalent with knowledge that Tesic and/or associates were engaged in a contemporaneous process of manufacture intended to produce methylamphetamine, and that this was distinguishable from mere acquisition or transport of chemicals in R v BD and consistent with R v Thomas.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under S 5 F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against Refusal of a Permanent Stay of Proceedings on an Indictment / Court of Criminal Appeal; Application for Extension of Time and Appeal
Outcome
Time extended in which to file the notice of appeal; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'taking Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'methylamphetamine' 'no Case to Answer']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'drug Offences'] ['permanent Stay of Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Appeal' 'taking Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'methylamphetamine' 'no Case to Answer']

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 Under S 5 F(3)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Against Refusal of a Permanent Stay of Proceedings on an Indictment / Court of Criminal Appeal; Application for Extension of Time and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to entertain an appeal from refusal of a permanent stay of proceedings.' 'Whether the evidence available to the Crown was capable of establishing that the appellant knowingly took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.' 'Whether the primary judge wrongly interpreted ss 6 and 24(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 or misapplied R v BD [2001] NSWCCA 184.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was within the Court's jurisdiction because it was from refusal of a permanent stay, not merely from a trial ruling that there was a case to answer. The primary judge did not err in concluding that the evidence was capable of establishing that the appellant supplied Sudafed or its generic equivalent with knowledge that Tesic and/or associates were engaged in a contemporaneous process of manufacture intended to produce methylamphetamine, and that this was distinguishable from mere acquisition or transport of chemicals in R v BD and consistent with R v Thomas.

Court Disposition

Time extended in which to file the notice of appeal; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Extend time in which to file the notice of appeal.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']