McGlone v R [2019] NSWCCA 252

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: McGlone v R [2019] NSWCCA 252 Hearing dates: 29 July 2019 Date of orders: 23 October 2019 Decision date: 23 October 2019 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Johnson J at [96]; Wright J at [135] Decision: (1) Grant the Appellant leave to appeal; (2) Allow the appeal; (3) Quash the convictions and sentences with respect to Counts 1, 2 and 4; (4) Order a new trial of the Appellant on each of Counts 1, 2 and 4 as contained in the indictment dated 8 May 2016 presented with respect to the Appellant and Mr McKell. Catchwords: CRIME – Commonwealth drug offences – conviction appeal – Crown concedes appeal on one ground – whether verdicts unreasonable or not supported by evidence so that acquittals should follow – agreement to import border controlled precursor – whether open to jury to conclude that accused and co-accused believed substance they agreed to import was a border controlled precursor – whether open to jury to conclude that accused and co-accused intended to use the substance or believed that another person intended to use any of precursor to manufacture a controlled drug – Cranney v The Queen considered – by majority held that guilty verdict not unreasonable – conspiracy to import border controlled drug – guilty verdict on that count not unreasonable – retrial ordered on all counts Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1) Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 11.2A, 11.5, 300.5, 307.1, 307.11, 400.4 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Act 2015 (NSW) Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 Cases Cited: Anil Suri v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2014] VSCA 260 Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502; [1987] HCA 16 Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1]; [2004] HCA 39 Cranney v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 234; (2017) 269 A Crim R 449 Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317; [1984] HCA 8 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606 McKell v The Queen [2019] HCA 5; (2019) 93 ALJR 309 Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75 R v Standen [2011] NSWSC 1046 Romolo v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 3 Standen v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] NSWCCA 187; (2011) 218 A Crim R 28 Standen v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 211; (2015) 253 A Crim R 301 The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; (2016) 258 CLR 308 The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618 The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1; (2009) 236 CLR 397 The Queen v LK (2010) 241 CLR 177; [2010] HCA 17 Taufahema v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 232; [2007] HCA 11 Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56; [1961] HCA 42 Texts Cited: J D Heydon's, Cross on Evidence (11th ed, 2017) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard McGlone (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: H Dhanji SC / T Ramrakha (Appellant) L Crowley QC / N Roucek (Respondent)