R v Barnier - [2001] NSWCCA 459

CITATION: R v Barnier [2001] NSWCCA 459

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60290/01

HEARING DATE(S): 16/11/2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina (respondent)
Geoffrey William Barnier (applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA at 1; Hidden J at 2; Barr J at 13

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0873

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : A P Cook (applicant)
M G Allnutt (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Deemed supply heroin - whether evidence sufficient to establish possession

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
Solway (1984) 11 ACrim R 449

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

60290/01

IPP AJA
HIDDEN J
BARR J

Friday 30 November 2001

Regina v Geoffrey William Barnier

Judgment

1 IPP AJA: I agree with Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: The appellant, Geoffrey William Barnier, was tried in the District Court before Ainslie-Wallace DCJ and a jury upon a charge of supplying methyl-amphetamine. The Crown relied upon the deeming provision in s29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He was found guilty and appeals to this Court against his conviction.

3 The facts can be stated shortly. At about 5.30am Federal Police officers, armed with a search warrant, went to a house at Wetherill Park occupied by the appellant. The appellant admitted them to the house. Also present there was a woman, who later left. One of the police officers, Federal Agent McQuillan, asked the appellant if there was anything in the house which should not be there. The appellant said that there was, in the kitchen. He added that “a guy” had come to the house the previous day and asked if he could leave a package there. The appellant agreed and he saw that man put the article in the kitchen. The effect of what the appellant told the police was that he was aware that the package contained a drug of some kind but he denied that it was his, saying that he had nothing to do with the drugs. He added that he thought that he had been set up.

4 The appellant led the police to the kitchen area and pointed to a hole in the wall above a pantry cupboard. He then pointed to the floor and Mr McQuillan saw a small opening in the skirting board at floor level. Inside that opening he found a clear plastic bag containing the methyl amphetamine the subject of the charge. (It may be that the bag was placed in the wall cavity above the cupboard and fell to the position where it was found, but it does not appear to me that anything turns on this.) Asked what he could tell police about the contents of the bag, the appellant replied, “Well, I don’t really know what it is. It wasn’t mine and it wasn’t there to sell. It was there for somebody.” He said that that…

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 Barnier

Details

AGLC: R v Barnier [2001] NSWCCA 459
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 459
Decision Date: 30 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Barnier involved the defendant, Barnier, who was charged with possessing a commercial quantity of heroin with intent to supply. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that Barnier possessed the heroin with the requisite intent to supply it commercially.

The legal issues before the court centred around the interpretation of the term "possession" and the requisite intent to supply a commercial quantity of a controlled substance. The prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Barnier not only possessed the heroin but also intended to supply it commercially. The court considered the statutory definition of possession and examined whether the evidence, including the circumstances of the discovery of the heroin and Barnier's conduct, was sufficient to support such a finding.

The court found that the prosecution had presented a strong case based on the quantity of heroin found, Barnier's possession of packaging materials, and other circumstantial evidence suggesting an intent to supply. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish possession and the requisite intent to supply the heroin commercially. The court's reasoning focused on the cumulative effect of the evidence, which supported a conclusion that Barnier possessed the heroin with the intent to supply it.

The court thus upheld the charge against Barnier. Final orders included the conviction and sentencing, which was not detailed in the provided text. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of a comprehensive analysis of both direct and circumstantial evidence in criminal cases involving possession with intent to supply controlled substances.

Orders