R v BAIN - [2018] SADC 87

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BAIN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 87
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Chapman
20 August 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
Criminal trial by judge alone - accused charged with two counts of supplying methylamphetamine to his partner on the one occasion - one bag was for his partner's own use (count 1) and the other bag was for his partner to sell (count 2) - the accused's partner subsequently died - prosecution case that the supply of the drug was witnessed by another - defence case that no such event occurred.
Held: Accused guilty of both counts - the eye witness was credible and reliable - evidence of the accused rejected.
Controlled Substances Act, 1984 (SA) s33(1)(a); Evidence Act, 1929 (SA) s34P(2)(b), referred to.
R v Urbanski (2010) 108 SASR 368, considered.

R v BAIN
[2018] SADC 87

The accused is charged with two counts of Supplying a Controlled Drug to Another[1]. It is alleged that on 8 May 2014 he supplied his then partner, Samantha Vanzati, with two small bags of methylamphetamine at their home in Murray Bridge. Ms Vanzati collapsed later that evening. She died in hospital on 10 May 2014 from heart failure. The accused is not charged with any offence in relation to her death.
[1] Section 33I(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984 (SA)
The prosecution case rested largely upon the evidence of an eye witness, Ms Tauri Dunn. She saw the accused give Ms Vanzati two bags containing a white crystal shard substance in Ms Vanzati’s bedroom. The accused told Ms Vanzati that one of the bags was for her own use (count 1) and the other bag was for her to sell (count 2).
The defence case was that no such supply occurred. There was no time on 8 May 2014 when the accused was in Ms Vanzati’s bedroom with Ms Dunn and Ms Vanzati. He was not even in possession of methylamphetamine that day. He had cocaine that day. He did not supply Ms Vanzati with any illicit substance.
The issue was whether the prosecution had proved that the supply as allegedly witnessed by Ms Dunn did in fact occur. The prosecution has the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove each element of each of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent unless and until his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to prove anything.
If Ms Dunn’s account was accepted to the relevant standard, her account of the accused’s conduct in relation to each of the bags of drugs would amount to an intentional ‘supply’[2] to Ms Vanzati. Was Ms Dunn a credible and reliable witness? If so, has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the drug supplied to Ms Vanzati was methylamphetamine?
[2] R v Urbanski (2010) 108…

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 BAIN

Details

AGLC: R v Bain [2018] SADC 87
Case: [2018] SADC 87
Decision Date: 20 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bain involved the accused being charged with two counts related to the supply of methylamphetamine to his partner on a single occasion. Count 1 pertained to a bag of the drug intended for the partner's personal use, while Count 2 involved a bag meant for the partner to sell. Tragically, the partner died before the case could proceed to trial. The prosecution's case was that the act of supplying the drug was witnessed by another individual. In contrast, the defence argued that no such witnessing occurred. The matter was heard by the court through a criminal trial presided over by a judge alone.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the credibility and reliability of the witness who claimed to have observed the supply of the drugs, as well as the acceptance of the defence's denial that the witnessed event took place. Additionally, the court needed to determine the truth of the accused's evidence and whether it sufficiently refuted the prosecution's case.

The court found the witness to be credible and reliable, accepting their testimony that they witnessed the accused supplying the drugs to his partner on the specified occasion. Consequently, the court rejected the accused's evidence and found him guilty on both counts. The decision hinged on the weight and credibility given to the witness's testimony over the accused's denial.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be found guilty on both counts of supplying methylamphetamine. The specific consequences of these findings, such as sentencing, were not detailed in the excerpt provided.

Orders