R v SH [2014] NSWCCA 218

R v SH [2014] NSWCCA 218

The appeal was dismissed because the existing ground of appeal did not reflect any finding made by the trial judge. The trial judge did not find that s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) was inapplicable to determining the amount of a drug; therefore the question posed by the ground of appeal did not arise. Leave to amend the ground was refused because the application was exceedingly late, would prejudice the respondent and require a further hearing, arose in the context of an exceptional Crown appeal from acquittal, and the proposed ground did not clearly identify a relevant question of law with precision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S 107 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against Acquittal of an Indictable Offence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Directed Acquittal After Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Acquittal' 'question of Law Alone' 'directed Acquittal' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'admixture Under Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw)' 'application to Amend Ground of Appeal' 'double Jeopardy']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'drug Offences' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['appeal Against Acquittal' 'question of Law Alone' 'directed Acquittal' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'large Commercial Quantity' 'admixture Under Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (nsw)' 'application to Amend Ground of Appeal' 'double Jeopardy']

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

Crown Appeal Under S 107 of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against Acquittal of an Indictable Offence / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Directed Acquittal After Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's existing ground of appeal raised a question arising from the trial judge's decision." 'Whether the trial judge erred in relation to the application of s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) to cardboard containing lysergide.' "Whether the Crown should be granted leave during the respondent's address to amend or substitute its ground of appeal." 'Whether cardboard containing an unascertained proportion of lysergide embedded within its fibres was capable of being a substance within s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the existing ground of appeal did not reflect any finding made by the trial judge. The trial judge did not find that s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) was inapplicable to determining the amount of a drug; therefore the question posed by the ground of appeal did not arise. Leave to amend the ground was refused because the application was exceedingly late, would prejudice the respondent and require a further hearing, arose in the context of an exceptional Crown appeal from acquittal, and the proposed ground did not clearly identify a relevant question of law with precision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Crown's application for leave to amend its ground of appeal refused." 'Appeal dismissed.']