Finch v R [2016] NSWCCA 133

Finch v R [2016] NSWCCA 133

The grounds of appeal were rejected primarily because the evidentiary rulings and jury directions complained of were either pursuant to legitimate forensic choices by defence counsel (to which appellant was bound), or were factually and legally sound, especially in circumstances where each container/package seized independently met the statutory threshold for a large commercial quantity of LSD. The inclusion of the liquid and cardboard in the calculation of drug quantities was correct under s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The absence of witness CJ, while potentially significant, was a forensic advantage based on the appellant's case theory and did not result in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted on Grounds 1-10 under s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW); leave to appeal refused on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules; Grounds 6-10 dismissed; submissions on the proposed additional Ground 11 (incompetence of counsel) ordered within 14 days.
Legal Topics
['drug Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'fair Trial' 'evidentiary Rulings' 'jury Directions' 'forensic Choices by Counsel' 'statutory Interpretation – Admixtures']
['criminal Law'] ['drug Offences' 'appeal Against Conviction' 'fair Trial' 'evidentiary Rulings' 'jury Directions' 'forensic Choices by Counsel' 'statutory Interpretation – Admixtures']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal Judgment on Conviction Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence concerning drugs not the subject of the charges (cannabis) should have been admitted' "Whether police officer's evidence as to method of consumption of LSD in cardboard form was admissible" 'Whether misdirection occurred regarding inclusion of cardboard and liquid containing LSD in overall weight under s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)' 'Whether primary judge should have directed jury to determine possession of drugs in different locations separately' 'Whether alternative charges (commercial quantity, supply simpliciter) should have been left to the jury' 'Whether failure to call police informant (CJ) deprived appellant of a fair trial' 'Whether verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence' 'Competence of defence counsel']

Ratio Decidendi

The grounds of appeal were rejected primarily because the evidentiary rulings and jury directions complained of were either pursuant to legitimate forensic choices by defence counsel (to which appellant was bound), or were factually and legally sound, especially in circumstances where each container/package seized independently met the statutory threshold for a large commercial quantity of LSD. The inclusion of the liquid and cardboard in the calculation of drug quantities was correct under s 4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The absence of witness CJ, while potentially significant, was a forensic advantage based on the appellant's case theory and did not result in...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted on Grounds 1-10 under s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW); leave to appeal refused on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 under r 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules; Grounds 6-10 dismissed; submissions on the proposed additional Ground 11 (incompetence of counsel) ordered within 14 days.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted on Grounds 1-10 under s 5(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)' 'Leave to appeal refused on Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 under r 4 Criminal Appeal Rules' 'Grounds 6-10 of the Notice of Appeal dismissed' 'Parties to exchange and file submissions regarding proposed Ground 11 (incompetence of...