Taiapa v The Queen [2009] HCA 53

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH CJ,

HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ

DION ROBERT TAIAPA APPLICANT

AND

THE QUEEN RESPONDENT

Taiapa v The Queen [2009] HCA 53

16 December 2009

B6/2009

ORDER

1. Extend the time for filing the application for special leave to appeal to 20 February 2009.

2. Special leave to appeal granted.

3. Appeal treated as instituted and heard instanter, and dismissed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland

Representation

G D Wendler for the applicant (instructed by John D Weller & Associates)

M J Copley SC for the respondent (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Taiapa v The Queen

Criminal law – Defences – Compulsion – Applicant convicted of possession of and trafficking in a dangerous drug – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence did not disclose a case fit for consideration by jury that there were reasonable grounds for applicant's belief that he was otherwise unable to escape the carrying out of the threat within the meaning of s 31(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (Q).

Words and phrases – "reasonable belief".

Criminal Code (Q), s 31(1)(d).

1. FRENCH CJ, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ. The applicant, Dion Robert Taiapa, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland of the offences of carrying on the business of unlawful trafficking in a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, and the possession of a quantity of that drug[1]. The factual basis of the Crown case was not in issue at the trial. It was the applicant's case that he did the acts that were said to constitute the offences in order to save himself and members of his family from threatened serious harm. He contended that he was not criminally responsible for his admitted conduct in collecting and transporting a substantial quantity of methylamphetamine because he had acted under compulsion within the meaning of s 31(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (Q). 2. The trial judge withdrew the issue of compulsion from the jury's consideration, thereby making the applicant's conviction of each offence inevitable. The applicant appealed against his conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in not leaving compulsion for the jury's determination. 3. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Keane and Fraser JJA and Lyons J) dismissed the appeal. The applicant applied out of time for special leave to appeal from the order of the Court of Appeal. On 25 June 2009 French CJ, Kiefel and Bell JJ referred his application to extend time in which to bring the application and his application for special leave to the Full Court. The applicant's solicitor provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application in an affidavit that was sworn on 18 August 2009. An order extending the time for filing the application should be made. For the reasons that follow, the application for special leave to appeal should be granted, but the appeal should be dismissed.