R v Abraham - [2012] SADC 77

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ABRAHAM
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 77
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Stretton
15 June 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES
The accused is charged with manufacturing a controlled drug by permitting her partner to use her house for the purposes of manufacturing methylamphetamine.
Police located a methylamphetamine laboratory in the shed, evidence of a recent methylamphetamine production in the kitchen, pseudoephedrine “tick lists” and other indications of methylamphetamine production in the house, including an air filter facemask containing the accused’s DNA and methylamphetamine traces, with no attempt having been made at concealment of any of those items. The accused’s partner pled guilty to manufacturing methylamphetamine at the house. Text messages indicated the accused had a strong degree of love, affection and loyalty to her partner. The accused denied knowing anything about it.
HELD: The only rational inference from all the proved circumstances is that the accused knew and permitted her partner to produce methylamphetamine, and did so out of a misplaced sense of love, affection and loyalty to him. The charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4, s 4(4), s 4(6) and s 33J(1), referred to.
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82, considered.

R v ABRAHAM
[2012] SADC 77
Introduction

The accused Chantel Maria Abraham is accused of permitting her house at 55 Durham Terrace Ferryden Park to be used for the purposes of manufacturing methylamphetamine.
She signed a lease and moved into that property on 17 August 2009.
Police knocked on the door at about 11am on 23 October 2009.
The door was answered by the accused’s partner Shane Sydenham. When police then entered, another man was seen sitting at the kitchen table, and the accused was in the shower.
The police located a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory in the shed, dishes containing methylamphetamine residue on the kitchen stove, and a facemask with traces of methylamphetamine and the accused’s DNA together with other items indicative of methylamphetamine production in the kitchen. In the laundry they located a laundry basket containing items of chemical glassware, and in the lounge they found two lists of quantities of tablets containing pseudoephedrine, the material commonly used to produce methylamphetamine.
Police also located other items sometimes associated with methylamphetamine and its production, including small re-sealable plastic bags and small electronic scales.
Mr Sydenham subsequently admitted using the clandestine laboratory to manufacture drugs and was convicted and sentenced for that and a number of other drug offences.
The accused admitted she lived at the house but declined to answer any questions about what had been going on there. At trial she pled not guilty and gave evidence that she had no idea the clandestine laboratory was in her shed and knew nothing about any methylamphetamine manufacturing that may have been going on at her premises. The issue in the case is whether she knowingly permitted her house to be so used.
The charge against the accused
The accused is charged with manufacturing a controlled drug contrary to section 33J(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (“the Act”), the particulars alleging that between 10 and 24 October 2009 at Ferryden park she knowingly manufactured a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine.
The law provides that this offence can be committed in a range of ways, including by allowing the use of premises for the purpose of manufacturing a controlled drug.[1]
[1] See Sections 33J, 4, 4(4) and 4(6)(f) of the Act.
The prosecution case is that the accused knowingly permitted her premises to be used for the purposes of manufacturing methylamphetamine.[2]
[2] See Crown Opening. (T2)
Elements of the offence
To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
1That methylamphetamine is a controlled drug;
2That it was produced at her premises;
3That the accused knew that methylamphetamine was being produced at her premises; and that
4The accused allowed her premises to be used for that purpose.
The real issue in the case
Methylamphetamine is a controlled drug, and the evidence is clear, overwhelming and undisputed that methylamphetamine was produced at the accused’s premises.
The issue in the case is whether the accused knew about it and allowed her premises to be used for that purpose.
The case is a circumstantial one
There are no prosecution eye-witnesses as to what went on in the accused’s house and what contact, if any, she had with the methylamphetamine manufacture that had plainly occurred there. The accused did not admit knowledge or involvement with it, and she exercised her legal right to decline to answer questions on that topic.[3]
[3] The accused was quite entitled to refuse to answer questions, and there can be no adverse inference whatsoever against her for exercising her legal right to do so.
The prosecution case therefore rests on circumstantial evidence. That evidence comprises a number of elements which, together, the prosecution says proves the case beyond reasonable doubt.
In such a case, to be convicted, the accused’s guilt must be the only rational inference that can be drawn from the proven circumstances.[4]
[4] I apply the principles articulated by the High Court, see for example Gibbs, Stephen and Mason JJ in Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82 at 104:
When the case against an accused person rests substantially upon circumstantial evidence the jury cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are “such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused”: Peacock v. The King. To enable a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused it is necessary not only that his guilt should be a rational inference but that it should be “the only rational inference that the circumstances would enable them to draw”; Plomp v. The Queen; see also Thomas v. The Queen. However, “an inference to be reasonable must rest upon something more than mere conjecture. The bare possibility of innocence should not prevent a jury from finding the prisoner guilty, if the inference of guilt is the only inference open to reasonable men upon a consideration of all the facts in evidence.” (Peacock v. The King). These principles are well settled in Australia. (Footnotes omitted).
Legal principles
The accused has elected to be tried by Judge rather than by a jury. I apply all the normal principles of law applicable in a criminal trial that would be applied in the course of trial and that would be outlined to a jury in summing up, were a jury present.
The evidence
In short, the prosecution case is that in all the circumstances it is plain that methylamphetamine had been manufactured at the house, with at least one step in its production having been completed very recently on the kitchen stove.
The prosecution also submit that what was located at and around the accused’s premises is simply incompatible with her not having known and permitted at least a step in the manufacture to take place there.
It is plain from the evidence of what was found at the premises by the police who attended on the day of the search, reflected in the tendered photographs[5] and in the tendered police exhibit list[6] and accompanying forensic analysis,[7] as explained by Mr Camilleri, head of chemistry at the Forensic Science Centre,[8] that the premises had been used to manufacture methylamphetamine within a day or so of the police attendance. That evidence was clear, compelling and undisputed.
The tenancy
[5]    See Exhibit P7
[6]    See Exhibit P9
[7]    See Exhibit P5 & P11
[8]    See Transcript pp 41-81
On 17 August 2009 the accused signed a residential tenancy agreement to rent the premises as tenant. When interviewed by police at about 11.35am on 23 October 2012 she said the premises were her current residential address. The evidence is clear and undisputed that that was the case.
Per the residential tenancy agreement the accused was the sole signatory as tenant although the agreement permitted a further named female person to live there. The accused’s boyfriend, Mr Sydenham, was neither a tenant nor permitted to live there per that agreement. Accordingly he, as a matter of law, was only legally entitled to enter and remain on the premises at all with the accused’s agreement.
Accordingly the evidence that the accused had the legal right as tenant in possession to permit or prohibit the presence of third parties and hence permit or prohibit any activities they might propose to conduct there is also clear and undisputed.
I now turn to evidence relevant to the issue of whether the accused knew about and allowed her premises to be used for the purpose of that manufacture.
Evidence as to the scale, disposition and condition of the equipment and other material found is potentially relevant to the issue of whether the accused knew about and permitted what had plainly been going on, so it must be examined in some detail.
The shed
The methylamphetamine laboratory was primarily located in an unlocked shed to the rear of the premises. There was no access to it from the street when police attended, as the only external access was blocked by a large closed gate at the side of the house. There was, however, free access to the shed from the rear of the house.
The shed contained materials and equipment which unchallenged police and forensic science evidence said amounted to a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory with all the necessary elements present to manufacture methylamphetamine.
The shed contained:[9]
[9] Summarised in Exhibit 5, table of results of analysis of items found and exhibit log P9.
·A white 10 litre bucket containing 5 litres of liquid in two layers consisting of an upper layer of Toluene with residual pseudoephedrine and codeine and a lower layer of alkaline liquid, marked DTF002.
·A glass 2 litre jug containing 2 litres of fluid in two layers consisting of an upper layer of Toluene with residual pseudoephedrine and codeine and a lower layer of alkaline liquid, marked DTF003. Two fingerprints were located on this jug but there was insufficient detail to enable a comparison.[10]
[10] See Agreed Fact 14 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A plastic 2 litre bottle labeled “Diggers Demineralised Water” containing 1.75 litres of liquid in two layers consisting of an upper layer of Toluene and acetone containing residual pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine with a pH level of 7 and a lower layer of alkaline liquid pH level 14, marked DTF004.
·A brown ceramic jug containing 400ml of unidentified liquid pH level 7, containing no drugs, marked DTF005. A fingerprint identical to the left index finger of Mr Sydenham was located on this mug.[11]
[11] See Agreed Fact 15 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A 20 litre metal drum labeled “Diggers Toluene” containing 15 litres of Toluene, marked DTF006.
·A retort stand with two boss heads and clamps, one with a 50cm glass condenser glass elbow one end with a plastic tube at both ends. The top end tube was connected to a submersible pump, with the pump plugged in and sitting in an esky of water. Swabs detected methylamphetamine, chlorpheniramine, 3,6-dideoxy-dihydromorphine and 1-benzyl-3-methylnapthalene, and sampled liquid traces were methylamphteamine, marked DTF007. A sample of DNA was collected from the non adhesive side of two pieces of black tape used to join the glass elbow and condenser. A weak and incomplete DNA profile was obtained, with Mr Sydenham not being able to be excluded as a possible source.[12]
[12] See Agreed Fact 2 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18, for full details.
·A 5 litre bottle labeled “Methylated Spirits” contained 4.8 litres of ethanol, marked DTF008.
·A drinking glass containing a cut off plastic bottle top improvised into a funnel and fitted with a coffee filter paper with brown staining, marked DTF009.
·A drinking glass with white residue comprising methylamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, codeine, chlorpheniramine and 3,6-dideoxy-dihydromorphine, marked DTF010. An unidentified fingerprint was found on this glass.[13]
[13] See Agreed Fact 16 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A glass jar with contents consistent with a hydrogen generator, with plastic tubing attached to an air pump and another piece of plastic tubing inserted into a plastic bottle labeled “acetone” holding 250 ml of white crystalline solid with the free end of tube in the bottle swabbed to reveal methylamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, clorpheniramine and 3,6-dideoxy-dihydromorphine, marked DTF011. This item was DNA tested but insufficient DNA could be located for profiling.[14]
[14] See Agreed Fact 3 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A 250ml jug with residue and a plastic container labeled “Methylated Spirits” with its top cut off containing a brown residue of methylamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, and 3,6-dideoxy-dihydromorphine, marked DTF012.
·A 1.5 litre plastic bottle cut in half, containing a 600ml coke bottle both containing brown residue, marked DTF013. A fingerprint identical to the left index finger of Mr Sydenham was located on this plastic bottle.[15]
[15] See Agreed Fact 17 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A plastic bottle cut in half with top inverted inside and holding filter papers and paper towel, marked DTF014.
·A 500ml conical flask holding a small quantity of glass and ceramic chips and a small quantity of alkaline liquid containing residual methylamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, chlorpheniramine, 3,6-dideoxy-dihydromorphine, 1-benzyl-3-methylnapthalene, and Toluene, marked DTF015. A fingerprint was located on this flask but there was insufficient detail to enable a comparison.[16]
[16] See Agreed Fact 18 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A 750g Saxa salt container, appearing to contain salt, marked DTF016.
·A pink latex glove with brown staining, marked DTF 017. This item was DNA tested but insufficient DNA could be located for profiling.[17]
[17] See Agreed Fact 4 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A 1 litre bottle labeled “Hydrochloric acid” containing 200ml of hydrochloric acid, marked DTF018.
·Coffee filter papers with brown staining, marked DTF019.
·A 5 litre plastic bottle labeled “Hydrochloric Acid” containing 1.5 litres of hydrochloric acid, marked DTF020.
·A 3.7 kg gas bottle labeled “Quik Gas” with blow torch fitted, located positioned at the elbow end of the condenser, marked DTF021.
·A hand held blue torch labeled “Bernzomatic”, marked DTF022.
·A set of “Precision” electronic scales in working order with methlamphetamine and a minor amount of amphetamine residue on its plate, marked DTF023.
·A plastic bag containing numerous small press seal bags, labeled DTF024.
·A plastic tub with lid containing a plastic ball with red staining containing approximately ½ gram of metallic prill (iodine), and a tube of silicone, marked DTF025.
·A plastic tub labelled “Mechanix Caustic Soda 500gr” holding 800g of metallic prill (iodine), marked DTF026.
·A 50cm fractionating column containing residue, marked DTF027.
·A box labelled “Harris Filter Papers 10-12 cups size 4” containing several unused filter papers, marked DTF028.
·A gas burner labeled “Gasmate portable cooker” with butane cylinder attached, marked DTF029.
·A butane cylinder labeled “Gasmate”, used but containing some gas, marked DTF030.
·A large 28cm glass vase holding 25ml of liquid in two layers consisting of an upper layer of Toluene containing residual pseudoephedrine and codeine and a lower layer of alkaline liquid, marked DTF 031.
·A 4 kg plastic ice bag containing an unidentified acidic crystalline substance and yellow liquid, marked DTF032.
·An empty 6 tablet blister pack labeled “Clarinase Repetabs” – PSE SO4 120mg, marked DTF033.
·A 5000ml conical flask with brown residue in the bottom, marked DTF034
·A plastic bottle labeled “Momar Mo-flo, liquid drain solvent, contains Sulphuric acid Net 1 litre” containing approximately 1 litre of sulphuric acid, marked DTF035.
·A glass jar labeled “Dolmio” holding an acidic crystalline substance with yellow liquid and filter papers, marked, DTF036.
Photographs of the contents of the shed and the items there located were tendered. They were explained by Mr Camilleri a chemical forensic scientist, as was the process of manufacture of methylamphetamine in clandestine laboratories. He also prepared the results of the analyses of those of these items collated in P5. His evidence was essentially unchallenged. He was, I find, highly qualified, competent and a good witness, whose evidence I accept in its entirety beyond reasonable doubt. It is plain from his evidence explaining the process of manufacture of methylamphetamine and his evidence explaining the items located in the shed, that the shed was being used as a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory to produce methylamphetamine, and had done so.
The equipment was plainly set up on low table in the centre of the shed in front of a couch. Its presence is obvious at a glance, and the shed does not appear to be dedicated to any other use than storage of various assorted items. In other words the equipment is set up, had not been disassembled, in plain view, and in the accused’s unlocked shed with no apparent attempt at concealment.
Power was provided to the shed by an extension cord obviously run from the back door across the back porch and lawn through the shed door to a multi plug powerboard.[18]
The kitchen
[18] See photos 3, 4 and 5 of Exhibit P7.
The kitchen also contained a number of items potentially relevant to the manufacture of methylamphetamine. These were:
·Four glass dishes on top of the four burner gas stove, each containing methylamphetamine residue together with other chemicals. These dishes are marked DTF038, DTF 039, DTF040 and DTF041.
·A glass bowl on the bench next to the stove containing methylamphetamine residue together with other chemicals. It was marked DTF042.
·A 1 litre plastic bottle labeled “Acetone” containing 800ml of acetone, marked DTF043.
·A 500g plastic container labelled “Caustic soda” containing 200ml of caustic soda, marked DTF044.
·A small plastic container with lid containing 5g of white crystalline chards of dimethyl sulfone, marked DTF045
·A 1 litre plastic bottle labeled “Isopropyl Achohol” containing 500ml of isopropyl alchohol, marked DTF046. Two fingerprints were located on this bottle which were identical to the right middle finger and left ring finger of Mr Sydenham.[19]
[19] See Agreed Fact 19 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
·A pH meter labeled “pH Scan 2” in working order with white methylamphetamine residue around its probe, marked DTF047.
·A plastic tub holding traces of methylamphetamine, amphetamine (minor), and 3,6-didyoxy-dihydromorphine, marked DTF048.
·A small glass jar with black lid containing traces of methylamphetamine and pseudoephedrine, marked DTF049.
·A small set of electronic scales disguised as an iPod, in working order, marked DTF050.
·A small set of scales in working order which when swabbed revealed methylamphetamine and amphetamine, marked DTF051.
·A “Benzomatic” TS 400 gas blowtorch, marked DTF052.
·A glass ice pipe which when swabbed revealed methylamphetamine, marked DTF053.
·A box of Harris filters, containing numerous unused filters, marked DTF054.
·A Comfo elite face mask. Police expert evidence was that this was an air purifying respirator that is commonly present at perhaps 10 or 20% of clandestine methylamphetamine laboratories that police locate and dismantle, and are used to protect the user from fumes arising from the drug “cook” and from powders that may become airborne.[20] The face mask was tested and upon DNA analysis gave a mixed DNA profile assessed as having originated from at least three DNA contributors who had contributed DNA unequally, with two major contributors and one minor contributor. The major component matched the combined reference DNA profiles taken from the accused and Mr Sydenham. It was a billion times more likely to be the accused and Mr Sydenham than two unrelated people. It was 122,000 times more likely to be from the accused and Mr Sydenham than an unknown person unrelated to the accused and Mr Sydenham. It was 17 times more likely to be the accused than a sister of the accused.[21] The mask was marked DTF055. Methylamphetamine was also detected on the facemask.[22]
·A small plastic tub containing about a ½ gram of iodine, marked DTF056.
·A small plastic tub containing about 1ml of hypophosphorus acid, marked DTF057.
·A small plastic tub containing 3.19g of dimethyl sulphone containing less than 0.01g of methylamphetamine, marked DTF058.
·A small plastic tub containing about 2g of dimethyl sulfone, marked DTF059.
·A plastic resealable bag containing numerous smaller plastic resealable bags.[23]
·A ‘bumbag’ containing $155 cash.[24]
[20] See Evidence of Detective Ellis. (T234-5)
[21] See Exhibit P11 and the evidence of forensic scientist Karen Lee.
[22] See evidence of forensic scientist Ms Ward. (T224)
[23] See photos 79 and 80 of Exhibit P7.
[24] See photos 83 and 84 of Exhibit P7.

In light of the evidence of Mr Camilleri, the four glass dishes located on the stove all containing dried methylamphetamine residue are consistent with having been recently used on top of the stove to complete the evaporation which comprises the final part of the third “purification” stage of methylamphetamine production. The caustic soda required for such a process was there also. A number of other chemicals and materials commonly utilized in the production of methylamphetamine as identified by Mr Camilleri were also present.
The presence of the dishes on the top of the stove on the burners, in proximity to an empty bowl with methylamphetamine residue, and the presence of other items on the top of the bench containing methylamphetamine such as the tub, the jar and the scales, are strongly indicative of recent methylamphetamine production activity.
The presence in the kitchen of scales in working order containing methylamphetamine, proximate to the glass dishes and bowl, are strongly indicative that the produced methylamphetamine had also been weighed in the kitchen. Quantities of small press seal bags consistent with those commonly used for packaging of methylamphetamine for sale were located in the shed,[25] on the lounge[26] and on the kitchen table[27].
[25] See TF024 of Exhibit P7 and photo 41 of Exhibit P7.
[26] See photo 86 of Exhibit P7.
[27] See photos 79-80 of Exhibit P7.
The proximate presence of an air purifying respirator facemask often associated with clandestine methylamphetamine production, that tested positive both for methylamphetamine and the accused’s DNA in a mixed sample is of obvious significance.[28]
The laundry
[28] I take into account the matters raised in cross examination including as to the possibility of innocent transfer of DNA from something else or from an earlier time.
The laundry also contained items potentially relevant to the manufacture of methylamphetamine.
Detective Hanssen was one of the police who attended at the outset. Shortly after entering he became aware that the accused was in the shower at the back of the house, so he walked into the laundry adjacent the bathroom at the back of the house just as she stepped out of the bathroom.[29] He said she initially spoke to him then went back into the bathroom to put on clothes. He said she then came out of the bathroom and needed to step over a washing basket on the floor containing what he described as laboratory equipment in the form of glassware. Detective Moore also saw the laundry basket containing what he described as a number of items of chemical glassware on the floor of the laundry. It is depicted in photo 55 of Exhibit P7.
[29] See Transcript p186.
Mr Camilleri noted from the photo that the glassware comprised seven glass tubes, three of which were broken, several miscellaneous pieces of tubing and a glass elbow.[30] It is plainly not glassware you would expect to see in an everyday laundry or kitchen and some of it bears some visual similarity to some of the glass tubing set up as part of the laboratory in the shed. It appears clean, and its presence in the laundry in a laundry basket might also tend to suggest it had been washed. It was marked DTF037.
[30] See Transcript, p69.
The presence of this spare chemical glassware, some broken, separate to the clandestine lab set up in the shed, in a washing basket, is suggestive that the lab activities had been going on longer than just per the very recent production set up in the shed.
The lounge
The lounge also contained items potentially relevant to the manufacture of methylamphetamine.
Police located two pieces of notepad paper which each appeared to comprise lists of items.[31] Two fingerprints identical to the right middle finger and left ring finger of Mr Sydenham were located on one page of these notes.[32] The first list reads:
[31] See notes in situ in photo 14 of Exhibit P7 and in close-up in photo 85 of Exhibit P7.
[32] See Agreed Fact 20 - Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit P18.
90   Tabs 30mg                  Sinus
12   Tabs 60mg                  C/OWN
20   Tab   30mg                  Day/Night
50   Tab   60mg                  Amcal S/H
36   Tab   30mg                  Codral orig
24   Tab   30mg                  C/F
48   Tab   30mg                  Cold/Flu
24   Tab   30mg                  C/F
24 Tab   30mg                  C/F
24   Tab   …..  Sinus
120         Tab   30mg                  Day/Night
The second list is less neat, less symmetrical, has lines drawn between each line, indicative in my view of being drawn up at a different time than the first list, and reads:
8x60mg  Dem
           10 Tab             120mg
3x120mg  Dem
240 Tabs         30mg       Cold/flu
2x120mg  Sudafed
36 Tab             60mg        Actifed
24 Tab             30mg        Dimetapp
96 Tabs  Long Blue
24 Pink            30mg
Mr Camilleri gave evidence that methylamphetamine is most commonly produced from pseudoephedrine utilizing hydrophosphorous acid and iodine.[33] The pseudoephedrine can be obtained in over the counter cold and flu preparations.[34] These lists appear to be lists of such over the counter cold and flu preparations indicating the content of an active ingredient, and would be consistent with someone recording or working out the amount of pseudoephedrine required or contained in a significant quantity of such medication.
[33] See Transcript, p44.
[34] See Transcript, p47.
Notwithstanding the presence of these lists, there were no corresponding quantities of empty packets of these materials, with only one being located in the house.
Notwithstanding the obvious recent production of methylamphetamine, there was no corresponding methylamphetamine located by police.
The overwhelming inference is that the empty packets had been disposed of at some time, and that the methylamphetamine produced had been sold, taken elsewhere or disposed of prior to police attendance. Obviously time and activity would also have been required on the part of one or more persons in the house, to perform both of these actions.
Police located gloves, further electronic scales, a quantity of press-seal bags and an ice pipe on the couch in the lounge.[35]
The front door
[35] See photo 86 of Exhibit P7
Evidence was called that a sticker proclaiming “Property protected by FINKS SECURITY” was prominently displayed on the front door.
It was admitted into evidence as evidence generally about security measures around the house, potentially relevant in a general way where illicit drug production is alleged to have occurred in a house.
It is common knowledge that “The Finks” are a motorcycle club who operate in South Australia. I dismiss any possible prejudice that might conceivably arise from any possible or potential link that the sticker might connote with “The Finks” motorcycle club.
No other evidence was called in relation to the sticker, or “The Finks” or “Finks Security”. I do not find that this sticker necessarily relates to that motorcycle club nor do I find that any suggested association with “Finks Security” amounts to any direct or circumstantial evidence of drug production against the accused in relation to the charge against her. Its only probative weight is that, as a sticker indicating that the house is protected by some kind of security, “FINKS SECURITY”, it is a sticker no doubt intended to deter people from breaking into the premises or otherwise entering without permission.
The only other significance the sticker has in the case, is that the accused’s answers concerning the sticker affected her credit. I will refer to that in more detail later in these reasons.
Other forensic evidence
Five of the small press seal bags located at the premises were tested for DNA. It was agreed that two of those bags had insufficient DNA for profiling. One bag had a weak and incomplete DNA profile, whereby Mr Lorraine could not be excluded but Mr Sydenham and the accused could be excluded. Another bag had a very weak and incomplete DNA profile whereby no conclusions could be drawn regarding Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine, but the accused could be excluded. The final bag gave a mixed DNA profile which had at least two unequal contributors, the major component matching Mr Lorraine.[36]
[36] See Statement of Agreed Facts, paras 5-9, Exhibit P18.
A black shaver was seized at the premises, tested for DNA and matched Mr Sydenham.[37] Two seized toothbrushes had insufficient DNA for profiling.[38]
[37] See Statement of Agreed Facts, para 10, Exhibit P18.
[38] See Statement of Agreed Facts, paras 11-12, Exhibit P18.
Methylamphetamine was detected on both Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine’s hands, but not the accused’s hands.[39] The latter finding might be expected in any event, as the accused was showering at the time of the police arrival.
Text messages from phones seized from the accused, Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine
[39] See Evidence of forensic scientist Ms Ward, Transcript pp 221-225.
Text messages extracted from the phones and a SIM card seized from the accused, Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine were agreed.[40] All these messages were tendered with the consent of the defence.
[40] See Statement of Agreed Facts paras 21-26, Exhibits P12, P13, P14, P15 and P17.
In part to assist in the interpretation of these messages, expert evidence

was given by Detective Ellis concerning methylamphetamine production, methylamphetamine trafficking and the terminology commonly used in relation to dealings in such illicit drugs.
Detective Ellis was highly experienced in the field, and I have no hesitation in accepting her as an expert in the field capable of giving such evidence. Her evidence was also clear and unchallenged by the defence. However, as with all expert evidence it is for the court to assess it and accept or reject it, and I adopt all the usual principles applicable to the assessment and use of expert evidence. I accept her evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Police attended the property on 23 October 2009.
Texts from Mr Sydenham’s phone and SIM card for the period 17 to 23 October 2009 appear to show his ongoing involvement with illicit drugs and the use of terms commonly associated with illicit drugs. These messages tend to suggest that Mr Sydenham was selling illicit drugs to at least several people.
Of particular potential relevance are a series of messages culminating in a message received by Mr Sydenham at 11.22 on 20 October 2009.
About two days earlier Mr Sydenham has asked the caller “Doe bro you know loot currency paper”[41], been asked by that caller “Gday there.did u forget me?”[42], “Gday there.ok 2 pop in?’[43], “Gday there.hows it going?havent forgotten me have ya?”, then replied to him “Killa ok to swing by quickly bro?”[44], and later “K ta”[45]. Later, the next afternoon Mr Sydenham asks “Are you still up bro sorry i fell asleep”[46], then in the morning of the next day Mr Sydenham texts “on my way bro”.[47] It is within an hour or so of these exchanges that this caller replies to Mr Sydenham with the message:
Gday there.hope alls well.once again complements 2 tha cook.im going 2 hafta nominate u for the next master chef.
[41] See Exhibit P12, call 3, some time on 17 or 18 October 2009.
[42] See Exhibit P12, call 14, on 18 October 2009.
[43] See Exhibit P12, call 20, on 18 October 2009 at 10.39pm.
[44] See Exhibit P12 , call 33 between 10.39pm on 18 October and 12.02am on 10 October 2009.
[45] See Exhibit P12, call 42 between 12.36am on 19 October 2009 and 12.50am on 19 October 2009.
[46] See Exhibit P12, call 61 between 2pm and 3.25pm on 19 October 2009.
[47] See Exhibit P12, call 91 between 9.47am and 9.50am on 20 October 2009.
Detective Ellis gave evidence that “Killa” is a term commonly used to describe methylamphetamine and “paper” a term to describe money in the illicit drug trade. Detective Ellis’ evidence was that “cook” is a term often used to describe the person who manufactures methylamphetamine.[48]
[48] See Transcript, page 238.
I observe that there is nothing in any of the other calls either generally, or to and from this caller, to suggest that this might relate to cooking food.
All this tends to suggest that Mr Sydenham was looking for money from this person, they were then seeking him out, attending his premises, and that on 20 October 2009 he supplied methylamphetamine to this caller from a recent production of it, and received a compliment from the caller about its quality shortly afterwards.
That caller texts in the evening of 20 October “Gday there.wonderin if u have anything at the mo?”[49], then the next day there are further messages of the same ilk.
[49] See Exhibit P12, call 126 at 8.33pm on 20 October 2009.
A number of other messages on Mr Sydenham’s phone and SMS card over this period are, particularly when viewed in their totality, and in the light of detective Ellis’ expert evidence about terminology used in the illicit drug trade, similarly suggestive of drug involvement, in particular but not limited to messages numbered 4, 8, 39, 40, 49, 77, 93, 95, 106, 108, 110, 112, 118, 137, 138, 140, 149, 150, 160, 169, 177, 179, and 183 of P12 and messages numbered 2, 11, 12 and 13 of Exhibit P13.
Similarly texts from Mr Lorraine’s phone, primarily for the period 18 October 2009 to 23 October 2009 are, particularly when viewed in their totality and in light of Detective Ellis’ expert evidence, suggestive of trafficking in illicit drugs. In particular, messages on Mr Lorraine’s phone on 21 October 2009, in light of Detective Ellis’ evidence, are suggestive of involvement in the manufacture of an illicit drug at that time.
The accused’s phone was also seized and text messages from it were tendered. It was an agreed fact that “There are no text messages indicative of an interest in drugs on the part of (the accused) contained in (the transcript of the messages)”.[50]
[50] See Statement of Agreed Facts - Exhibit P18, para 23.
There are a large number of messages from 11 June to 20 October 2009 that indicate the accused had a very close ongoing relationship with Mr Sydenham, and that certainly at least towards the end of that period he was living at the accused’s premises.[51] Many of the messages are along the lines of how much the accused loved Mr Sydenham and when and what time was he going to be “home” for her, although occasionally she is plainly upset with him and the messages indicate anger and criticism. Periodically it is clear Mr Sydenham has been out all night and not done what the accused expected. Periodically there are messages, commonly in the evening, whereby the accused asks Mr Sydenham where he is.
[51] See Exhibit P17.
On 14 August the accused texts Mr Sydenham telling him she has got the house with only her name on the application and that she will sign the papers and pay the bond on Monday. After that time there are no angry texts between them, although the accused does variously text Mr Sydenham asking where he is or when he is coming home.
What the text messages indicate is the accused’s very strong ongoing affection for Mr Sydenham and a correspondingly close interest in his whereabouts. They also indicate that she is prepared to raise issues with him when she is not happy about what he has or has not done.
Other evidence
It was agreed that Mr Sydenham had committed a number of offences:[52]
·Possessing heroin on 19 August 2000, for which he was fined without conviction on 18 April 2002,
·Producing cannabis on 6 July 2007 for which he was convicted and fined on 23 May 2008,
·Manufacturing a controlled drug on the accused’s premises in the clandestine laboratory located at the accused’s premises on this occasion (23 October 2009),
·Trafficking methylamphetamine on 18 February 2011, and possessing prescribed equipment used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine on 19 February 2011, and
·Manufacturing methylamphetamine on 20 August 2011. For this offence, the 18 and 19 February 2011 offences and other offences he was jailed for 4 years 3 months with a non parole period of 18 months.
[52] See Statement of Agreed Facts, para 27.
It was also agreed that Mr Sydenham was released from prison on 12 October 2009, having served two months of an eleven month sentence for possessing a firearm without a licence committed on 6 July 2007, with the remainder of that sentence to be served in the community whilst subject to a good behaviour bond.[53]
[53] See Statement of Agreed Facts, para 28.
The defence – I knew nothing about it
The accused gave evidence on oath. She was not obliged to do so, and it is therefore appropriate to give her credit for adopting a course she was not obliged to take.
It is timely to observe however that it is always for the prosecution to prove every element of any charge beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no obligation on the accused to prove anything.
The accused gave evidence denying any knowledge of the clandestine laboratory set up in her shed, of the items relating to methylamphetamine manufacture located in her kitchen, on her stove, in her laundry and her lounge.
She gave evidence that she is 23 years of age, having left home at 15 and a half to live with Mr Sydenham at his parents’ house at an address in Woodville North. She said her parents were not happy about that due to her age and the fact that Mr Sydenham was 7 years older than her. She said that Mr Sydenham did not want her to work, and when she was two days into year 12 at school she ceased attending school.
The accused gave evidence that she knew Mr Sydenham was a drug user from about six months after moving in with him. She said she agreed to help him stop using the heroin he was using at that time and for the next year and half Mr Sydenham was on methadone. She estimates she lived with Mr Sydenham and his parents for around 2 years, after which they moved in together to a rental property in Cheltenham. They moved a couple more times and then back in with Mr Sydenham’s parents. After that, they moved to 55 Durham Terrace, the premises where the clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory was ultimately found.
The accused gave evidence that throughout his methadone treatment Mr Sydenham was smoking marijuana, and whilst living at Cheltenham she became aware he was using methylamphetamine. She said it did not affect their relationship at the start but later on she could tell it had become a daily habit. She said his behaviour deteriorated and they would have conflict. She said it affected her relationship with her family and her impression was that Mr Sydenham almost tried to turn her against them and she had little to do with them. She said she loved him. She said he preferred her to stay at home with him rather than go to school. She said that he would be away for periods of time when he was using drugs, giving excuses like he was helping a friend or working on a car. At this time she became suspicious about whether there was another woman.
She gave evidence that in 2009 she was living at Mr Sydenham’s parents’ place waiting for him to be released from gaol. She said they had spoken about getting a place to rent when he got out as he did not want to go back and live with his parents. She agreed that she signed the tenancy agreement dated 17 August 2009. She said the relationship was not happy prior to him having gone into custody as she knew he was using a lot of drugs, he wouldn’t come home, he was violent at times and he didn’t want anything to do with her side of the family. The accused said that she visited Mr Sydenham in prison. He told her things would be different and he would change when he got out.
At that time the accused was working at Sprint Auto Parts, Kilkenny, a business that Mr Sydenham’s mother owned. She worked there for 2½ years from October 2008 until April/May 2011. In October 2009 she was working there full-time.
The accused gave evidence that on 23 October 2009 she got a message that morning that she had to go in and work a half day, even though she was not rostered on. On the previous day she would have worked, she said, between 8.30 or 9am and 5pm. She said she would have gone home about 6pm that previous day, would have made something to eat, perhaps relaxed, gone onto facebook, watched TV and played with her two dogs. She guessed she would have gone to bed between 10 and 11 pm. She said she did not recall Mr Sydenham being there when she went to bed. She said that since Shane had got out of gaol his behaviour had been really good for the first couple of weeks.

The accused said that the glass dishes police located on her stove top on 23 October had not been there the night before. She said that she had seen some of the items seized by police including the caustic soda which was used to clean the drain, and the acetone which she had seen under the sink. She denied having seen the isopropyl alcohol before and she said that in any event none of these items were on the bench the night before the police arrived. The accused denied seeing the pH meter nor the container with the black lid or the scales before. She denied seeing the small clear plastic containers before. She agreed she had seen the coffee filters before but not the four plastic containers visible in photograph 13. She denied having seen the “tick list” located by police.
In relation to the facemask located by police she said she couldn’t say she had seen it at Durham Terrace but said that she had used a facemask when they had lived at a previous address when Mr Sydenham was spray painting his car but had not worn one since then. She couldn’t say whether the facemask located by police was the one she had worn in 2008 when Mr Sydenham painted his car. She could not recall whether she had packed that facemask up to be moved from the previous address.
The accused gave evidence that there was a shed on her property but she did not go into it very often. She said that as at 23 October 2009, although she could not be certain, it was around 4 weeks since she had been in that shed.
The accused denied having seen the glassware set up in the shed shown in photograph 6 and said she had not seen the drum of Toluene in the shed. She denied seeing the other methylamphetamine production equipment as well.
The accused said that on 23 October she woke up at around 10am in the morning, that she would have laid in bed, checked her phone for messages, might have played with the dogs in the bedroom, and might have lain there for a while longer.
She said she got out of bed, walked through the house, saw Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine sitting in the kitchen and walked into the shower. She said she noticed Mr Lorraine with his head on his hands on the kitchen table. She went into the shower and when she came out of it there was a knock at the door and it was the police. The accused denied seeing the glassware located in the laundry basket in her laundry. She also denied seeing the items located on the lounge couch depicted in photograph 86.
The accused was cross examined and taken through much of this evidence a second time. She agreed she knew about Mr Sydenham’s drug taking over the years and his problems with the law. She said she was not concerned that he might have been involved in criminal activities at the time of his arrest. She said that before he went into custody for that firearms charge the relationship was not going well and that they fought. This evidence is, to some extent, supported by the text messages. However, many of those messages are positive expressions of love by her. She was taken through a number of those messages in detail, particularly messages where she raised issues with him and complained about his behaviour. She, in general, denied remembering anything about what the messages related to. Those denials are hard to accept in relation to some of the messages, for example messages on 7 August 2009, given the specificity and obvious strength of feeling exhibited. The Crown argues that the messages, when viewed as a whole, appear to exhibit no concern whatsoever about drugs, more a concern that he may be on with another woman.
In cross examination she agreed that she would have fallen asleep between 10 or 11pm on 22 October and it was put to her that it would be unlikely she would sleep for 12 hours till 10 am the next day as she had claimed. She said she had possibly slept for the full 12 hours.
She said she could not recall the “Protected by FINKS Security” sticker on the front door or that she paid much attention to it at all. I find that evidence hard to accept given that the sticker was in the middle of the front door and referred to “FINKS Security”.
Much of the accused’s evidence was given in a straightforward way. She was ostensibly matter of fact and apparently credible in her descriptions of her history with the accused. When she came to deny any knowledge of the methylamphetamine laboratory or any of the other items she denied having seen - her answers became more quietly delivered and less spontaneous or convincing.
Her evidence that she may have slept for 12 hours and had only just got up prior to being in the shower at about 11am when the police arrived is also hard to accept given her time of going to bed the night before. It is also hard to accept her answers that she had no idea and seemingly no interest in where Mr Sydenham was all night and in the morning of 23 October. Those answers sit uneasily with the text messages which indicate a keen interest in his whereabouts and when if out he might be home, on other occasions.
The respective cases
Counsel for the prosecution submitted that the case had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the evidence of production of methylamphetamine at the house was overwhelming. He pointed to the clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory in the shed, the evidence of the final stage of production on the stove, the other materials likely to relate to production of methylamphetamine littered around the kitchen including a facemask with both methylamphetamine and the accused’s DNA on it. He noted that all the equipment was still set up, he argued, with the obvious inference that it must have been with the knowledge and permission of the accused. He pointed to the “tick lists” and other drug paraphernalia in the house and the chemical glassware in the laundry. He argued that a plethora of illicit drug equipment and other items relating to elicit drugs were left all around the property in plain view with the inference that the accused must have known and permitted that to be the case.
Counsel for the prosecution argued that the clear inference arising from the dishes on the stove was that the hydrochloric acid was evaporated there, a process that produces very harsh fumes, which he argued could not have been done without the knowledge and permission of the householder. He pointed to other aspects consistent with the knowledge and consent of the householder, including the scales and plastic resealable bags also located. Counsel for the prosecution argued that the SMS messages showed no indication that the accused was against Mr Sydenham’s drug use at all and that her evidence that she did not condone it was consequently unconvincing. He argued that it was obvious that the true situation was that Mr Sydenham did what he liked and the accused knew and permitted it. He argued that a proper analysis of the expert evidence was that whilst theoretically the production process could take as little as 8 hours it would often take some 24 hours.
Counsel for the defence submitted that the case had not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. He urged the Court to accept the accused’s evidence and argued that there was no reason not to believe the accused. He reminded the Court of her evidence. He emphasised her evidence that when she got up in the morning she went straight to the shower, that she had not been to the shed for about 4 weeks, and nor had she seen the chemical glassware located by police. Defence counsel argued that there were other items in the shed such as a TV and fan heater and that consequently the extension cord power to the shed should not be regarded as suspicious. He emphasised that none of her fingerprints or DNA could be found on any of the equipment.
Defence counsel argued that the methylamphetamine production at the house could have occurred as in little as 8 hours and noted that both Mr Sydenham and Mr Lorraine appeared tired when police attended. He pointed to tools and chemicals that he argued may also have been simply for Mr Sydenham to work on his car, for example acetone to strip paint. He argued that a lay person would not necessarily know that the glass dishes on the stove were used for the final stages of methylamphetamine manufacture. He argued that it was likely that she wouldn’t have seen the items or known their significance. Defence counsel argued that Mr Sydenham was someone who seemingly did not care much about the accused and may well not have sought her permission to manufacture methylamphetamine at her house. In short, defence counsel argued that Mr Sydenham may well have produced methylamphetamine in the house overnight without the knowledge of the accused, but that there was no evidence she went into the shed and that she as a lay person would not necessarily know what the items in the kitchen would be used for.
These are only some of the arguments advanced by counsel. I have had regard to all of their arguments.
Assessment of evidence
I have closely considered all the arguments put by counsel for the DPP and the defence. I have carefully assessed the accused’s evidence on oath.
I find that the evidence of the materials located at the house together with the expert police evidence and the forensic evidence called plainly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that methylamphetamine had been produced at the property over the previous day or few days. Indeed it was not suggested otherwise by the defence.
All the prosecution witnesses gave evidence in a clear and forthright way. There was no hint of exaggeration or bias in any of the prosecution witnesses as to the facts or the expert police witness or the forensic witnesses. I find all the prosecution witnesses to be truthful and reliable.
I found the accused’s evidence to be straightforward as to her background and her general history with Mr Sydenham over time. I found her evidence less convincing in her denials of knowledge of the methylamphetamine production that was plainly taking place at her premises. Her evidence of concern and opposition to Mr Sydenham’s drug activities is not reflected in any way in the intercepted text messages over an extended period of time and I did not find her evidence to that effect credible. She maintained a regular series of expressions of love and affection for him notwithstanding her knowledge of his multiple drug use, imprisonment on firearms charges and other extremely poor behaviour. My overall impression is that her concerns were primarily that he be a good partner to her and treat her right, rather than any real concern about his crime or drug activities over time. I also conclude that her evidence that she hardly noticed and gave no thought to the security sticker in the middle of her front door was not credible.
This is a circumstantial case. As with a classic description of such a case being akin to a rope comprising many strands of widely varying strength, so it is here. The circumstantial case is also directed to establishing that the accused knew of the production of methylamphetamine at her property and permitted it. Ultimately it is the combined strength of all the strands both strong and weak that must be considered.
As mentioned, I accept the prosecution evidence as honest and reliable beyond reasonable doubt. The primary circumstances which I find proven beyond reasonable doubt relevant to the crucial issue the accused’s knowledge and permission are as follows;
·The accused was the residential tenancy holder of the premises and had been so from 17 August 2009. It was her current residential address at the time of the events in question. One other female person with a similar last name is permitted per that agreement to be a tenant but no reference was made to her by anyone in the course of the case. There is, from the evidence of the accused’s tenancy and occupation, an inference that a person would ordinarily likely know what is happening on their premises and that any significant activity on the premises is being done with that person’s permission.
·The accused had the legal right to permit or not permit any other person to reside on the premises and consequently to permit or not permit any other person performing any activity on those premises.
·A fully operational methylamphetamine laboratory was located in the unlocked shed near the back door of the accused’s premises. The shed was not locked and there was easy access to it from the house. Power to the shed was being provided by a extension cord running from the backdoor of the house to the shed in plain view. The shed was obviously set up as a methylamphetamine laboratory, as its primary purpose, on a table in front of the couch in the middle of the shed.
·Although no methylamphetamine production was occurring when the police attended, the shed was still set up as a methylamphetamine laboratory, and was unlocked with no attempt to conceal it from the accused.
·The kitchen contained four glass dishes on top of the gas stove containing methylamphetamine residue consistent with having just been used to complete the final evaporation stage of methylamphetamine production. They were in plain view, had not been removed, cleaned or hidden from the accused.
·Numerous other items were in plain view in the kitchen, which were items likely to have been used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Those items included electronic scales DTF051 which when swabbed revealed methylamphetamine and amphetamine.
·An air purifying respirator of a kind often present at clandestine methylamphetamine laboratories was located on the kitchen table. The facemask contained methylamphetamine residue and DNA which matched both Mr Sydenham and the accused. It was a billion times more likely to be the accused and Mr Sydenham than two unrelated people, 122,000 times more likely to be from the accused and Mr Sydenham than an unknown person unrelated to the accused and Mr Sydenham, and was 17 times more likely to be the accused than a sister of the accused. The location of the facemask with the accused’s DNA at the kitchen table would be consistent with the accused wearing that mask to protect herself from fumes whilst her partner, Mr Sydenham, completed the methylamphetamine evaporation process on the kitchen stove. It is theoretically possible, as raised in cross examination with the forensic witness, that DNA can be transferred from some other source onto such facemasks. The accused gave evidence that she may have worn that mask, or a similar mask, on a previous occasion at another property when the accused was spray painting his car. I find that evidence unconvincing given that spray painting of a car would have occurred outside any house, and there would be no need for the accused to wear such a mask to avoid contact with paint spray from outside the house.
·Forensic science evidence established that the final stage of evaporation in methylamphetamine production would produce very pungent fumes. That process I find was conducted in the kitchen of the accused’s house rather than in the shed where it could have been performed with the burners and other materials that were out there. This circumstance tends to suggest that there was no attempt to conceal the process from the accused.
·The presence of electronic scales in working order containing methylamphetamine in the kitchen, proximate to glass dishes and a bowl with methylamphetamine residue and the presence of small press sealed plastic bags consistent with those commonly used for packaging of methylamphetamine, suggests that the kitchen had also been used for weighing and packaging of the methylamphetamine, also with no attempt to conceal that from the accused. Both of those processes could have occurred in the shed or elsewhere if Mr Sydenham had been concerned at all to conceal any of these activities from the accused.
·The location of chemical glassware consistent with use in methylamphetamine laboratories in a laundry basket in the accused’s laundry is also suggestive that no attempt was being made to conceal the methylamphetamine production equipment from the accused.
·It is highly unlikely that the accused would not have seen or known the chemical glassware was there as she claimed in evidence, when she had to step over them or pass them to get into the shower area that morning and had to step over or pass them to get out of the shower area.
·The presence of the spare chemical glassware, some broken, separate to the clandestine laboratory, in a washing basket, is suggestive that the lab had been going on in the house longer than just per the very recent production set up in the shed.
·SMS messages located on Mr Sydenham’s phone are suggestive that he had an ongoing involvement in methylamphetamine. In particular the messages earlier described in these reasons over the two days leading up to a final message at 11.22 on 20 October 2009;
Gday there.hope alls well.once again complements 2 tha cook.im going 2 hafta nominate u for the next master chef.
Tends to suggest that Mr Sydenham had been producing methylamphetamine on 20 October, some 3 days earlier.
·Texts from Mr Lorraine’s phone primarily for the period 18 October to 23 October 2009 are suggestive of involvement in manufacture of an illicit drug on or around 21 October 2009, two days prior to the police attendance.
·Police located two lists in the lounge room which, I find in all the circumstances, are only consistent with a methylamphetamine producer tabulating and collating the amount of pseudoephedrine required for illicit drug production which they were either planning to or had obtained for the purposes of methylamphetamine production. These were located in plain sight in the lounge room with no attempt to conceal them.
·The presence of the methylamphetamine laboratory, evidence of recent production, and lists of substantial amounts of tablets which would have provided pseudoephedrine combined with the fact that none of these packets were present, nor was the recently produced methylamphetamine present, suggest that both a packaging and disposal process had also occurred before the police attended, and that all the empty packets, bar one, had been collected and disposed of before that time. This must have occurred either by one of the members of that house leaving to do that or by someone else attending to take those things away, which again were potentially noticeable by the accused.
·The location of sets of electronic scales around the premises consistent with those used for the weighing, measuring and packaging of methylamphetamine, at least one of which contained that residue, in plain sight are also consistent with no effort being made to conceal the packaging and production stage of methylamphetamine trafficking from the accused.
·The presence of the “Property protected by FINKS security” on the front door gives rise to an inference that would-be entrants to the house were being actively dissuaded.
·The text messages by the accused indicate and exhibit a strong degree of affection, love and loyalty for Mr Sydenham, who was plainly involved in the production of methylamphetamine at the house. This provides a motive for the accused to want to know what he was doing and to permit him to conduct that production at her house.
·The text messages reveal no concern whatsoever for the criminal activity, drug use and habits that Mr Sydenham plainly had.
·The text messages indicate that on occasions when the accused was upset with Mr Sydenham she was quite prepared to raise issues with him and to refuse to agree to his behaviour.
The overwhelming inference from all these matters which I find proven beyond reasonable doubt is that methylamphetamine manufacture had been occurring openly in the shed and kitchen of the accused’s premises at the very least over the previous 24 hours but probably over the preceding three days with the knowledge and permission of the accused. Material indicative of methylamphetamine manufacture was located in the shed, the kitchen, the laundry and the lounge. The accused was plainly in love with and loyal to Mr Sydenham, the methylamphetamine producer, and exhibited no concern in any of the recorded messages about his crime and drug involvement. The accused’s DNA was located on a mask in the kitchen, where it is obvious that the final fume producing stage of methylamphetamine production had occurred. It is likely that she had worn this mask to protect herself whilst that final stage of production was being carried out by her boyfriend Mr Sydenham. It is plain from the text messages that she was capable of raising issues and disagreeing with Mr Sydenham’s conduct if she wished to do so.

In the final analysis the only rational inference arising from the totality of the circumstances is that the accused knew about the methylamphetamine production that was occurring both in the shed and in her kitchen and permitted it to occur. There is no reasonable possibility that she, with her strong degree of loyalty, affection and interest in her partner, Mr Sydenham, would have not been aware that he had set up a clandestine drug laboratory in her shed and was spending many hours out there and in her kitchen producing methylamphetamine and did not permit him to do so in all the circumstances.
I have carefully considered her evidence in this court that she neither knew or permitted Mr Sydenham’s activities and do not find it credible, nor does it raise a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
Accordingly I find beyond reasonable doubt the following:
1 That methylamphetamine is a controlled drug.
2That methylamphetamine, a controlled drug, was produced at the accused’s premises over the preceding one to three days i.e. between 20 and 23 October 2009,
3That the accused knew Mr Sydenham was producing methylamphetamine at her premises and,
4That the accused allowed Mr Sydenham to use her premises for that purpose and did so out of loyalty and affection to him. There is no evidence of commercial motivation on the part of the accused.
Verdict
Accordingly I find beyond reasonable doubt that the accused manufactured a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, between 10 October and 24 October 2009 at Ferryden Park, by knowingly permitting her premises to be used for that purpose.
The accused is convicted of the offence as charged.