Legal Research
Cases
R v Amanatidis

R v Amanatidis

Case [2001] NSWCCA 400 5 October 2001

Deemed Possession

Knowledge of Illegal Substance

Custody or Control

Conviction Quashed

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
125 A Crim R 89

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60697/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 October 2001

PARTIES :

R v Michael Amanatidis

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hulme J at 15; Adams J at 62

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0338

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Garling DCJ

COUNSEL : M Sexton SC & P Baker - Crown
P Byrne SC & J Barnett - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Turnbull Hill - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: CRIME - deemed possession of heroin - heroin found in locked car - appellant had driven car to where it was found and had keys - heroin was in his custody or control - but appellant's daughter had use of other keys to car and had chattels in car - daughter was a drug user - appellant's knowledge that heroin in car not established by his driving it and having keys - no other evidence capable of establishing knowledge beyond reasonable doubt - conviction quashed.

CASES CITED:
Basto v R (1954) 91 CLR 628;
Cumming (1995) 86 A Crim R 156;
Domican v R (1991-1992) 173 CLR 555;
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
He Kaw The v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523;
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487;
Moors v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265;
R v Bazeley (CCA, 23 March 1989, unreported);
R v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226;
R v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64;
R v Filipetti (1984) 13 A Crim R 335;
R v Sobolewski (CCA, 21 April 1998, unreported).

DECISION: Appeal upheld and conviction quashed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60697/00
DC 99/31/0338

GILES JA
HULME J
ADAMS J

Friday 5 October 2001

R v AMANATIDIS

Judgment

1 GILES JA: The appellant was convicted of a charge of supplying heroin. The supply was a deemed supply under s 29 of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985, established by proof of possession of more than 3 gms of heroin.

2 The heroin was in a Longbeach cigarette packet in a locked car. The appellant had driven the car to where it was parked when the heroin was found, and had keys to the car. There was no evidence one way or the other as to whether the appellant had been accompanied in the car by another person.

3 There was evidence -

(a) that there were other keys to the car at the house of the appellant and his daughter, available for the use of his daughter;

(b) that the appellant's daughter drove the car on occasions and had driven it the previous night;

(c) that the appellant's daughter's regular brand of cigarettes was Longbeach;

(d) that the appellant's daughter had been convicted of an offence of possession of heroin and another offence relating to…

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 Amanatidis

Details

AGLC: R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 400
Decision Date: 5 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Amanatidis dealt with a criminal charge concerning the possession of heroin. The appellant had driven a car to a location where it was subsequently found, and he had the keys to the vehicle. The heroin was discovered in the car, which was locked at the time of its discovery. The appellant's daughter also had access to the car as she possessed another set of keys and had her belongings in the car. She was known to be a drug user. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant had sufficient knowledge and control over the heroin to be held criminally liable for its possession.

The court examined the principles of deemed possession under the criminal code, focusing on whether the heroin was in the appellant's custody or control. While it was established that the heroin was within the appellant's control as he had driven the car and possessed one set of keys, it was also noted that his daughter had access to the vehicle and was a drug user. The court considered whether the appellant's knowledge of the heroin in the car could be inferred from his driving it and possessing a key, but found that this alone did not sufficiently establish his knowledge of the heroin to the requisite standard. The prosecution failed to provide any other evidence that could prove the appellant's knowledge of the heroin beyond reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the evidence did not establish the appellant's knowledge of the heroin to the required standard of proof. Therefore, the conviction for possession of heroin was quashed. The court's decision hinged on the lack of sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's knowledge of the heroin, despite his control over the car. The conviction was thus overturned, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.

Orders