R v Armitage - [2017] SADC 17

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Disputed Facts Hearing)
R v ARMITAGE
[2017] SADC 17
Ruling of His Honour Judge Chivell
2 March 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES
Defendant pleaded guilty to manufacturing methylamphetamine for sale on the basis that he believed another person intended to sell some of it but that he did not intend to sell any of his share. He gave evidence on oath that his share of the methylamphetamine was for his own use and for supply to his girlfriend. Prosecution disputed this version of the facts.
Held: Onus on prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant intended to sell methylamphetamine to another person; onus not discharged; defendant to be sentenced on the basis of facts deposed to by him.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 33(3), s 33LA(a), referred to.
R v Maxwell (1996) 184 CLR 501; R v Pugh (2005) 158 A Crim R 302; R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; R v Kreutzer (2013) 118 SASR 211, considered.

R v ARMITAGE
[2017] SADC 17

Mr Armitage has pleaded guilty to manufacturing a controlled drug for sale[1] (count 1).
[1] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 33(3).
The particulars of count 1 are:
James Armitage between the 1^st day of June 2014 and the 1^st day of August 2014 at Tranmere, manufactured a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, intending to sell any of it or believing that another person intended to sell any of it, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was to be a controlled drug.
Mr Armitage also pleaded guilty to possessing prescribed equipment[2] (count 2).
[2] Controlled Substances Act 1984, s 33LA(a).
At about 1 a.m. on 31 July 2014, police attended at an address in Tranmere. The house is owned by Mr Armitage. He inherited it from his mother.
As police walked down the driveway of a neighbouring premises, a police officer saw through a window a small plastic tub on the kitchen table containing what later proved to be methylamphetamine. It weighed 11.8 grams, of which 6.1 grams was pure methylamphetamine (count 1). The police also discovered a ‘clandestine laboratory’ consisting of glassware and other equipment, and chemical residue, in the laundry and in a roof cavity (count 2).
Mr Armitage says that his plea is an admission that he believed that another person intended to sell some of the methylamphetamine, and that the rest of it was for his own personal use and for supply to his girlfriend.
The Director of Public Prosecutions does not accept this version of the facts. It submits that Mr Armitage intended to sell at least some of the methylamphetamine to another person.
A plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of the offence.[3] The prosecution has pleaded two alternative versions of the offence on the information. There is a dispute about which version of the offence is…

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 Armitage

Details

AGLC: R v Armitage [2017] SADC 17
Case: [2017] SADC 17
Decision Date: 2 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus John Armitage, the defendant was charged with drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. The dispute arose from a drug raid conducted by police at the defendant's residence. The court had to decide whether the search and seizure of evidence were lawful under the Australian Criminal Code and whether the evidence obtained should be admitted. The primary legal issue was whether the police had a valid warrant to conduct the search and whether the search was conducted in accordance with the law. The court examined whether the police acted within the scope of their authority and whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court held that the police acted within the bounds of the law when they obtained the search warrant. The warrant was issued based on credible information and was executed in the early morning hours to minimise any disruption. The court found that the police acted reasonably in conducting the search and that the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court held that the search was lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant's argument that the search was conducted without his consent and that his privacy was violated was rejected by the court.

The court found the defendant guilty of drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment and imposed a fine. The court held that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's criminal history. The court also ordered that the defendant's assets be forfeited to the Commonwealth. The court emphasised the importance of enforcing drug laws and protecting the community from the harmful effects of drug trafficking. The defendant's appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders