R v Alford - [2007] SADC 81

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ALFORD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2007] SADC 81
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Simpson
10 August 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - POSSESSION
The accused was charged with possession of cannabis, a prohibited substance, for sale on 1 April 2006, contrary to s 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 - fourteen packages of cannabis, weighing a total of about 6.2 kg, were located in the accused's car at an address at Plympton Park - the car had been left by the accused at the premises some hours before - there were other people living at the premises, where two separate cannabis crops were located - the accused was staying at a hotel at the time the cannabis was found - he had keys to the car in his possession - whether the prosecution had established that the accused had the cannabis in his possession at the relevant time - whether the accused had a requisite degree of knowledge that the cannabis was in the car at the time the cannabis was found - whether the accused had exclusive custody or control over the car or the cannabis - whether the accused intended to exercise control over the cannabis: Verdict : Not guilty.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 ss 32(1)(e), 32(3), referred to.
Tabe v R (2005) 225 CLR 418; He Kaw Teh & The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Moors v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293; R v Amanatidis (2001) 125 A Crim R 89; R v Dib & Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64; R v Filippetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335; The Queen v Kranz (1989) 151 LSJS 178; Ron Swee Cheong Lai (1989) 42 A Crim R 460; R v Moubarak (2002) 219 LSJS 276; Question of Law Reserved (No 4 of 1997) (1998) 71 SASR 228; R v Rowan (2003) 81 SASR 364, applied.
R v Long;R v McDonnell (2002) 137 A Crim R 263, distinguished.

R v ALFORD
[2007] SADC 81

The accused, Michael Shane Alford, is charged with the offence of possessing cannabis for sale, contrary to section 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (‘the Act’). Particulars of the offence are that on 1 April 2006 at Plympton Park, the accused knowingly had cannabis, a prohibited substance, in his possession for the purpose of selling it to another person. It is further alleged that the amount of cannabis involved in the offence was more than 2 kg.
The trial proceeded as a trial before a judge without a jury, pursuant to section 7(1) of the Juries Act 1927. The accused pleaded not guilty.
Section 32(1) of the Act provides,
A person must not knowingly—
(a)manufacture or produce a drug of dependence or a prohibited substance; or
(b)take part in the manufacture or production of such a drug or substance; or
(c)sell,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Alford

Details

AGLC: R v Alford [2007] SADC 81
Case: [2007] SADC 81
Decision Date: 10 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alford, the accused faced a charge of possessing cannabis for the purpose of sale, a prohibited activity under the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The incident occurred on 1 April 2006, when approximately 6.2 kilograms of cannabis were found in a car belonging to the accused. The car was located at an address in Plympton Park, which the accused had left some hours before the discovery. The premises was shared with other residents, and two separate cannabis crops were also found there. At the time the cannabis was discovered, the accused was residing in a hotel and had keys to the car in his possession.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that the accused had possession of the cannabis at the relevant time. This involved assessing whether the accused had the requisite knowledge that the cannabis was in the car when it was found, whether he had exclusive custody or control over the car or the cannabis, and if he intended to exercise control over the cannabis. The outcome of the trial was a verdict of not guilty.

The reasoning of the court was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish that the accused had possession of the cannabis. The court found that the evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the accused had the necessary knowledge, control, or intention to exercise control over the cannabis at the time it was found. As a result, the court acquitted the accused of the charge.

The final orders of the court were straightforward, given the verdict of not guilty. The accused was discharged from the charge of possessing cannabis for the purpose of sale, reflecting the court's conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders