Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51

High Court of Australia Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51

ORDER Application for special leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Cur. adv. vult.

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

Nov. 27 Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

The applicant, Richard John Doney, seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing an appeal against his conviction for being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin: see s. 233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 Cth. The cannabis resin was secreted in the core section of certain bolts of voile cloth packed in boxes which, in turn, were packed in a container consigned by sea from Karachi to Sydney. The named consignee, a fabric importer, had not ordered the cloth. Its name had been used without its authority.

The prosecution case depended on the evidence of an accomplice, Gerard Clayton Freeman. He gave evidence that he had been approached by the applicant to arrange customs clearance of a container of cloth, and that later, but shortly before the consignment arrived in Sydney, the applicant made the shipping papers available to him and informed him that there would be some cannabis resin in the container.

Freeman was by no means a perfect witness. Not only was he an accomplice who attracted the usual warning that it would be dangerous to convict on his uncorroborated evidence, but his evidence was, on his own admission, false in a number of respects. He also admitted to having given a false account when first interviewed by investigating police, to having departed in some respects from evidence previously given and to having given evidence designed to conceal past dishonest dealings which had resulted in convictions for offences of dishonesty. It is clear that the trial judge formed an unfavourable view of his truthfulness as a witness.