Jackwitz v R; Franklin v R [2006] NSWCCA 419

Jackwitz v R; Franklin v R [2006] NSWCCA 419

The indictment was not duplicitous because the essential offence was possession of a precursor accompanied by the relevant intention, and it was not essential to prove a specific intention as to who would manufacture the prohibited drug. The trial judge was entitled to infer from the repeated pharmacy purchases,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After Judge Alone Trial in the District Court
Outcome
In each case, appeal against conviction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['possession of Precursor Intended for Use in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'joint Possession' 'duplicity in Indictment' 'circumstantial Evidence of Intention']
['criminal Law' 'drug Offences' 'criminal Procedure'] ['possession of Precursor Intended for Use in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'joint Possession' 'duplicity in Indictment' 'circumstantial Evidence of Intention']

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 New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Convictions After Judge Alone Trial in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the indictment was bad for duplicity because it alleged possession of a precursor intended for use in manufacture by the appellants or another person.' 'Whether the Crown case disclosed a prima facie case requiring the appellants to answer.' 'Whether the evidence was capable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants intended the precursor to be used in the manufacture of a prohibited drug.' 'Whether Franklin was in joint possession of the precursor.']

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment was not duplicitous because the essential offence was possession of a precursor accompanied by the relevant intention, and it was not essential to prove a specific intention as to who would manufacture the prohibited drug. The trial judge was entitled to infer from the repeated pharmacy purchases, records of purchases and anticipated profit, quantity of pseudoephedrine, and the appellants' conduct that both appellants intended the precursor to be used in manufacturing a prohibited drug. It was also open to infer that Franklin and Jackwitz were party to a joint criminal enterprise and were in joint possession of the substance.

Court Disposition

In each case, appeal against conviction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction by Leslee Ann Jackwitz dismissed.' 'Appeal against conviction by Elizabeth Ann Franklin dismissed.']