R v MacCormack

[2003] QCA 280

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Search of person pursuant to search warrant
6. › Whether reasonable grounds to suspect person had evidential material
7. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3E, 3F(1)(f)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Admissibility of circumstantial evidence
6. › Documents evidencing money transfers to person in country from which drugs sent
7. › Whether documents circumstantial evidence of involvement in importation
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds
4. › Unreasonable or insupportable verdict
5. › Whether verdict unsafe
6. › Where evidence if believed could provide innocent explanation
7. › Where appellant did not give evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Factors to be taken into account
4. › Totality
5. › Cumulative sentence upon sentence already being served
6. › Whether trial judge failed to take into account totality of combined criminality

Quick Take

The case confirms that where a controlled delivery has been made and the parcel is observed to have been opened, police have reasonable grounds under s 3E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to suspect persons present may have evidential material on their person. Documents showing unexplained money transfers to an unidentified person in the country from which drugs were sent are admissible as circumstantial evidence of involvement in importation.