SCICLUNA v R [2007] NSWCCA 120

SCICLUNA v R [2007] NSWCCA 120

By majority, the Court held that the directions given by the trial judge did not amount to error justifying the quashing of convictions on all counts. The evidence supported the applicant's conviction on count 2 (supply of methylamphetamine), but on the evidence, the convictions on counts 1 (knowingly take part in manufacture), 3 (possession of precursor), and 4 (possession of prohibited weapon) were unreasonable or could not be supported, in light of inadequate proof of knowledge, control, and intent required for those offences.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Joseph Scicluna; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed by majority; conviction on count 2 upheld; convictions on counts 1, 3, and 4 quashed (per Adams J, dissenting in part)
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Drug Offences, Evidence Use of Findings Across Counts, Possession of Precursor, Possession of Prohibited Weapon, Reasonableness of Jury Verdicts
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Drug Offences Evidence Use of Findings Across Counts Possession of Precursor Possession of Prohibited Weapon Reasonableness of Jury Verdicts

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Joseph Scicluna

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge erred in directing the jury regarding the use of findings on one count for others
  2. 2 Whether verdicts of the jury were unreasonable or not supported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether trial judge should have directed verdicts of acquittal on certain counts

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the directions given by the trial judge did not amount to error justifying the quashing of convictions on all counts. The evidence supported the applicant's conviction on count 2 (supply of methylamphetamine), but on the evidence, the convictions on counts 1 (knowingly take part in manufacture), 3 (possession of precursor), and 4 (possession of prohibited weapon) were unreasonable or could not be supported, in light of inadequate proof of knowledge, control, and intent required for those offences.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed by majority; conviction on count 2 upheld; convictions on counts 1, 3, and 4 quashed (per Adams J, dissenting in part)

Orders

  • Convictions in respect of counts 1, 3, and 4 quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered (per Adams J)
  • Question of sentence on count 2 deferred to allow written submissions on sentence variation