R v Bilac - [2018] SASCFC 75

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BILAC
[2018] SASCFC 75
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Kelly and The Honourable Auxiliary Justice Tilmouth)
17 July 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PRODUCTION OR CULTIVATION
Appeal against conviction. The appellant was charged and convicted by jury of two counts of manufacturing a controlled drug. He was acquitted of the charge of trafficking a controlled drug.
Police located equipment and chemicals in the cellar of an unoccupied partly constructed house owned by the appellant. It was the prosecution case that the appellant had purchased equipment and chemicals and had embarked upon the early stages in the process of manufacture of methylamphetamine and MDMA. The appellant gave evidence to effect that he had been conducting scientific experiments for entirely innocent purposes.
The appellant appeals the guilty verdicts on the ground that they were unreasonable and not supported having regard to the evidence.
Held:
1 It was open to the jury to conclude that the respective steps were sufficient to amount to the process of the manufacture of the respective drugs.
2 The guilty verdicts were not dangerous or unsafe.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 33(3), 33LC(1), 33LC(2) and (3); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 353(1), s 353(2); SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; R v S,DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v Vaccaro (2017) 127 SASR 284; Re Avory: Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2003) (2003) 87 SASR 392; Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, referred to.
R v Randylle (2006) 95 SASR 574, applied.
Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 118, considered.

R v BILAC
[2018] SASCFC 75
Court of Criminal Appeal: Kourakis CJ, Kelly J and Tilmouth AJ

KOURAKIS CJ: I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Tilmouth AJ.
KELLY J: I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Tilmouth AJ.
TILMOUTH AJ.
Appeal against conviction
Joseph Bilac appeals against convictions for manufacturing methylamphetamine and MDMA, entered following unanimous guilty verdicts delivered on 6 November 2017. His application for an extension of time was granted by a judge of this court, who at the same time granted permission to appeal on the ground that the verdicts were ‘unreasonable and not supported having regard to the evidence’.[1]
[1] T2.33, T12.3-.6, 16 April 2018, Parker J, Appeal Book p 15.
The prosecution case in brief
The charges followed a search by police in the late afternoon of 18 March 2015 at Coventry Street Mawson Lakes, of an unoccupied three-story partly constructed home registered in the joint names of Mr Bilac and his wife. They lived in rental accommodation in…

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 Bilac

Details

AGLC: R v Bilac [2018] SASCFC 75
Case: [2018] SASCFC 75
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *R v Bilac*, the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia considered an appeal against convictions for drug offences. The appellant, Mr Bilac, had been found guilty by a jury of offences related to the manufacture of illicit drugs.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the jury's verdicts were unsafe or dangerous, or whether there was a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's guilt. This required the Court to assess whether the evidence presented at trial reasonably supported the jury's conclusion that the appellant had knowingly engaged in steps towards the manufacture of MDMA.

The Court reasoned that while the extraction of piperine from pepper using isopropanol might appear benign in isolation, it constituted an essential first step in the manufacturing process of MDMA. This process was undertaken in conjunction with the acquisition, storage, and concealment of related equipment and materials. The Court found that the appellant's explanation of innocent experimentation was not credible, particularly given the presence of two distinct processes within the same building, each apparently a step in the manufacture of different illicit drugs. The Court concluded that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the appellant knowingly commenced the first step in the manufacture of MDMA, and that a reasonable jury was entitled to reach this conclusion.

Consequently, the Court found no reason to apprehend that the guilty verdicts were dangerous or unsafe, nor that the jury must have entertained sufficient doubt to warrant acquittal. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The process of extracting piperine from pepper by dissolution in isopropanol was on the face of it a relatively benign one. No illegal substances were involved. This process, even as a first step, was nevertheless an essential step in the process of manufacturing MDMA. It was accompanied by the acquisition, storage and concealment of associated equipment, substances and materials. Mr Bilac’s explanation of innocent experimentation makes no sense. Moreover, the evidence that two discrete processes undertaken in the same building were objectively, steps in the manufacture of two different illicit drugs, strongly rebuts Mr Bilac’s explanation that each process had an innocent purpose. The only reasonable inference to draw from the evidence was that he knowingly embarked upon a first step in the process of manufacture of MDMA. The jury’s verdict of guilty reasonably accepted that was the case. That being so, a reasonable jury was entitled to conclude that guilt was proven to the requisite degree.Conclusion and Orders Given the above analysis, there is no reason to apprehend either guilty verdict was dangerous or unsafe, or that the jury must have entertained a sufficient doubt to entitle Mr Bilac to verdicts of acquittal. The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.