R v Olssen

[2018] QCA 114

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. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
5. › Whether evidence sufficient to prove identity of dangerous drug where courier did not see contents of package
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Misdirection
4. › Propensity evidence
5. › Whether direction required that evidence on separate counts not cross-admissible
6. › Whether failure to give propensity direction caused miscarriage of justice
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Parity between co-offenders
5. › Whether sentence excessive having regard to sentences of co-offenders who pleaded guilty
6. › Whether disparity gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Parole eligibility date
5. › Whether sentencing judge required to foreshadow intention to set parole eligibility beyond 50 per cent of head sentence
6. › Whether adequate reasons given for parole eligibility date

Quick Take

Circumstantial evidence including the clandestine nature of a transaction, the disproportion between cash paid and the value of the ostensible goods, and the courier's evidence about the purpose of the trip can be sufficient to prove the identity of a dangerous drug even where the courier did not see the contents of the package. Where a trial is conducted on the single issue of identity of the supplier rather than propensity, a direction against propensity reasoning is not required and may deflect the jury from its proper task. In sentencing, where parity considerations lead to a reduction in the head sentence below the SVO threshold, the seriousness of the offending may be reflected by setting the parole eligibility date beyond 50 per cent of the head sentence.