Saad v The Queen [1987] HCA 14

Saad v The Queen [1987] HCA 14

Special leave was refused because, although the trial judge's direction was erroneous in light of He Kaw Teh, the trial issue was whether the applicant possessed the heroin at all. If the jury rejected the applicant's denials and found possession, there was no reasonable basis to suggest that he was ignorant of the existence or nature of the heroin. The Court of Criminal Appeal was therefore correct to apply the proviso to s 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 Vic, as no miscarriage of justice occurred and the interests of the administration of justice did not require special leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal (vic) Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal From Conviction
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'narcotic Goods' 'mens Rea' 'jury Directions' 'criminal Appeal Proviso' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'customs and Excise'] ['possession of Prohibited Imports' 'narcotic Goods' 'mens Rea' 'jury Directions' 'criminal Appeal Proviso' 'special Leave to Appeal']

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 Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From a Judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal (vic) Dismissing an Application for Leave to Appeal From Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the Crown did not have to prove that the applicant knew the parcel contained heroin or a prohibited import.' 'Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal (Vic) properly applied the proviso to s 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 Vic despite the erroneous direction.' 'Whether any miscarriage of justice occurred such that special leave to appeal should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave was refused because, although the trial judge's direction was erroneous in light of He Kaw Teh, the trial issue was whether the applicant possessed the heroin at all. If the jury rejected the applicant's denials and found possession, there was no reasonable basis to suggest that he was ignorant of the existence or nature of the heroin. The Court of Criminal Appeal was therefore correct to apply the proviso to s 568(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 Vic, as no miscarriage of justice occurred and the interests of the administration of justice did not require special leave.

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for special leave to appeal refused.']