R v SEYMOUR [2001] NSWCCA 272

R v SEYMOUR [2001] NSWCCA 272

The conviction on the second count miscarried because the jury was not directed as required by s25A(3), the evidence did not permit the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the jury was satisfied of the same 3 occasions of supply within a 30 day period, and the charge contained a latent defect through failure to identify the relevant 30 day period. The proviso was not appropriate, but a new trial was ordered because the Court was not prepared to conclude that the Crown should be denied the opportunity to proceed again. The conviction on the third count was upheld because the identification of the pistol by Mr Williams was not a significant part of the proof of possession, there...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal in part allowed; conviction on second count quashed; order that there be a new trial on that count; otherwise appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'firearm Possession' 'jury Directions' 'object Identification Evidence' 'defective Charge or Lack of Particularity']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'firearm Possession' 'jury Directions' 'object Identification Evidence' 'defective Charge or Lack of Particularity']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From District Court Convictions After Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to direct the jury in accordance with s25A(3) of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act on the need for all jurors to be satisfied as to the same 3 occasions of supply.' 'Whether the supply charge was defective or insufficiently particularised because no 30 day period was identified.' 'Whether the conviction for possessing a firearm miscarried because the jury was not warned about object identification evidence concerning the pistol.' "Whether the jury's inability to agree on the first count affected the safety of the firearm possession conviction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction on the second count miscarried because the jury was not directed as required by s25A(3), the evidence did not permit the Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the jury was satisfied of the same 3 occasions of supply within a 30 day period, and the charge contained a latent defect through failure to identify the relevant 30 day period. The proviso was not appropriate, but a new trial was ordered because the Court was not prepared to conclude that the Crown should be denied the opportunity to proceed again. The conviction on the third count was upheld because the identification of the pistol by Mr Williams was not a significant part of the proof of possession, there...

Court Disposition

Appeal in part allowed; conviction on second count quashed; order that there be a new trial on that count; otherwise appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against the conviction on the second count upheld.' 'Conviction on the second count quashed.' 'New trial ordered on the second count.' 'Otherwise appeal dismissed.']