R v Bilac
[2018] SASCFC 75
•17 July 2018
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 75Court 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 the adjoining suburb of Parafield Gardens. The Mawson Lakes property was purchased in 2010. Construction came to a halt when they ran short of cash in 2011.[2] Mr Bilac was seen by police driving nearby whilst the premises were under surveillance some 45 minutes earlier.[3] The vehicle was located the following day parked and locked several streets from Coventry Street.[4] It contained a receipt for chemicals and glass tube packaging.[5] Mr Bilac visited the premises once or twice a week.[6]
[2] T523.6-.14
[3] T302.26-303.30.
[4] T255.26-256.16.
[5] Exhibits P13, P17 and P18.
[6] T531.16-.27.
Police entered the secured premises with the use of a ladder to gain access through a first floor window. Once inside they found a centrally located underground reinforced concrete cellar or bunker, measuring 6.5m x 3.5m. This was accessible by lifting a trap door set into a concrete floor, covered by a mattress. Access down into the cellar was by means of a building ladder already positioned at the entrance below the trap door.[7]
[7] Exhibit P4, Photographs 2 and 3.
Mr Bilac was tried on three counts, the first trafficking in methylamphetamine, of which he was acquitted by the jury. This count was based on the presence of methylamphetamine in low and sometimes trace quantities weighing in total 7.15 g, found in small plastic tubs in a cardboard box on a table in the cellar.[8]
[8] Exhibit P28, T512.38-513.3. The box is seen in photograph 14 of Exhibit P4 and the tubs in photograph 126 of Exhibit P3.
Count 2 on the Information charged the manufacture of amphetamine for the purposes of sale, and count 3 the manufacture of 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy), both contrary to s 33(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Count 2 entailed a process then occurring on a laboratory table within the cellar, involving the purification of nitromethane from racing or model plane fuel. Count 3 was based on another process simultaneously taking place on a table on the ground floor. This involved the extraction of piperine from pepper by a process of dissolution in isopropanol.
On the evidence adduced at trial, the extraction and purification of nitromethane from the fuel can be a step taken in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, and the step of extracting piperine from pepper by dissolution in isopropyl alcohol was a step in the manufacture of MDMA.
The defence case
Mr Bilac elected to give evidence in his own defence. He claimed that in purifying nitromethane he was attempting to separate the fuel into its constituent elements of methanol, castor oil and nitromethane, for entirely innocent purposes.[9] His objective was the construction of hydrogen fuel cells to minimise his costs, if he resumed mining activities.[10] He admitted the chemical equipment was his, and used for furthering his chemistry studies, research and conducting experiments.[11] The extraction of piperine was done so that he could understand the process.[12]
[9] T535.24-536.22.
[10] T524.1-.34.
[11] T536.15-537.1.
[12] T543.23-544.24.
He gave evidence that the cellar was built as a ‘safe house’ for safety reasons.[13] Mr Bilac denied engaging in any steps in the creation of either methylamphetamine or ecstasy. He maintained that he knew nothing about the small quantities of methylamphetamine located in the plastic tubs.[14]
[13] T523.29-.35, T531.9-.12, 578.22-.35.
[14] T551.13-.32.
Statutory context
Both charges were brought contrary to s 33(3) of the Controlled Substances Act. This creates the offence of manufacturing a controlled drug ‘intending to sell any of it or believing that another person intends to sell any of it’. Section 33LC(1) of the Controlled Substances Act defines ‘manufacture’ as:
(a) undertake any process by which the substance is extracted, produced or refined; or
(b) take part in the process of manufacture of the substance.
The prosecution proceeded under s 33LC(1)(b) thereof in the case against Mr Bilac at trial.
Sections 33LC(2) and (3) of the Controlled Substances Act expands upon ‘any one’ of the kinds of activity included in the ‘process of manufacture’, as follows:
(2)For the purposes of this Division, a person takes part in the process of manufacture of a substance if the person directs, takes or participates in any step, or causes any step to be taken, in the process of manufacture of the substance.
(3)For the purposes of this Division, a step in the process of manufacture of a substance includes, without limitation, any of the following when done for the purpose of manufacture of the substance:
(a) acquiring equipment, substances or materials;
(b) storing equipment, substances or materials;
(c) carrying, transporting, loading or unloading equipment, substances or materials;
(d) guarding or concealing equipment, substances or materials;
(e) providing or arranging finance (including finance for the acquisition of equipment, substances or materials);
(f) providing or allowing the use of premises or jointly occupying premises.
The ground of appeal
The ground on which permission to appeal was given invokes s 353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.[15] This requires the Court of Criminal Appeal to:[16]
… ask whether the jury, acting reasonably, must have entertained a sufficient doubt to have entitled the accused to an acquittal.
This task involves the court in making its own independent assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the evidence, to determine whether it would be dangerous in the circumstances to permit verdicts to stand: SKA v The Queen,[17] The Queen v Baden-Clay.[18] Section 353(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act enables the court to quash a conviction and ‘either direct a judgment and verdict of acquittal to be entered or direct a new trial’.[19]
The ground of appeal
[15] Since repealed and reinstated in s 158(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA).
[16] Morris v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 454, 461-462, 471-473, 478-479, M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, 492–493 and Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, [113]
[17] (2011) 243 CLR 400, [14].
[18] (2016) 258 CLR 308, [65]-[66].
[19] Since repealed and reinstated in s 158(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA).
Summary
Counsel for the appellant Mr Jolly emphasised the absence of chemicals necessary to complete the process of manufacture in each instance, and that the chemicals involved had legitimate uses. He further pointed to the unusual combination of chemicals found on the premises not usually seen or required in the manufacture of illicit drugs, or were otherwise innocuous. These included such substances as biphenyl, fluorene, thiourea, sodium bisulphite, sodium acetate and zinc, as well as a few unidentified substances or liquids. In order to appreciate the strength of these points it is necessary to refer to the evidence in some detail.
Inconsistent verdicts
First it is convenient to deal with the submission that the guilty verdicts on counts 2 and 3 were inconsistent with the acquittal on count 1. Mr Jolly submitted they were ‘an affront to logic and common sense’, MacKenzie v The Queen,[20] and for which there was no logical explanation: R v S,DD.[21]
[20] (1996) 190 CLR 348, 368.
[21] (2010) 109 SASR 46, [166]-[171].
There are however a number of bases on which these verdicts are reconcilable. First, the defence on count 1 was quite different than it was for counts 2 and 3. The jury might therefore have considered it reasonably possible that Mr Bilac had no knowledge of the methylamphetamine in the small tubs in the cardboard box, as he claimed in his evidence.[22] There was evidence that the property was occupied by an acquaintance for some time beforehand during the greater part of 2014, and who continued to have his mail directed to the Mawson Lakes address.[23] Mr Bilac gave evidence that the mattress covering the entrance to the cellar belonged to this man. This was one line of defence suggested by his counsel during his closing address.[24]
[22] T532.26-.37.
[23] T531.37-533.7.
[24] Summing up p 21.3, T653.23-.34.
Secondly, the jury might reasonably suppose the amphetamines were by-products of earlier manufacture. A pot that was located weighed 2.18 g and contained 0.39 g of amphetamine.[25] Expert evidence before the court considered this characteristic was ‘commonly seen as a by-product’ of the production of methylamphetamine by the dissolving metal reduction method.[26]
[25] Exhibit P32, agreed fact no. 9.
[26] T437.14-438.4.
Thirdly, and most likely, the expert evidence was that the sampled methylamphetamine was of a very low quality and purity and unlikely to be saleable.[27] None of the indicia of sale were found, such as ‘tick lists’, wads of cash, small electronic scales or multiple mobile phones, to name a few of the most common features of trafficking. Once again this was a line taken by defence counsel in his closing address to the jury.[28] In that state of the evidence a reasonable jury could obviously conclude there was no intention to sell. An alternative verdict of simple possession was not left for the jury to consider.[29]
[27] T394.6-.10.
[28] T654.11-.19.
[29] Summing up pp 22.8-23.3.
The process of manufacture - methylamphetamine
Dr M Cox a forensic chemist having experience in examining clandestine drug laboratories, gave evidence in the prosecution case. He attended and examined the subject premises before the apparatus and equipment were dismantled by police in the days after. In respect of the process the subject of count 2, he considered one process of manufacturing methylamphetamine was by the ‘dissolving metal reduction method’. By this method pseudoephedrine can be converted to methylamphetamine using lithium or sodium with ammonia or liquefied ammonia.[30] Dr Cox later described this process as:[31]
… a single step process from either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine … being the precursor … then reagents such as lithium and liquefied ammonia are ... applied … that will produce methylamphetamine.
[30] T345.28-346.1.
[31] T490.22-.27.
This very process of distillation was actually underway on a ‘magnetic stirring hot plate’ when police gained entry and searched the cellar. The apparatus in question is seen in photograph 7 of Exhibit P4. This was described by Dr Cox as ‘an attempt to purify nitromethane from racing fuel’[32] which ‘can be used as a source of nitrogen in methylamphetamine’[33] and ultimately in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.[34]
[32] T352.9-.10.
[33] T352.18-.19.
[34] T350.17-353.12.
Having examined the apparatus Dr Cox considered:[35]
… there's indications that methylamphetamine has been manufactured by the dissolving metal reduction method from either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine … most likely pseudoephedrine. There was open batteries, indicating access to lithium. There was a cylinder which was visually consistent with containing liquefied ammonia. …. - so that's a direct reaction to ephedrine, pseudoephedrine to methylamphetamine.
[35] T453.28.
This process was undertaken with the use of a round bottom glass reaction vessel, peanut oil, and a deep-fryer that ‘could be used to effectively heat the surfaces of the round bottom flask for the purposes of purification by distillation’.[36] The peanut oil and the deep-fryer were purchased by Mr Bilac two days earlier from Woolworths at Mawson Lakes.[37]
[36] T414.2-.10, Exhibit P4, photographs 11 and 12.
[37] Exhibit P8, Woolworths receipt, T595.37-596.1.
Police also found a four pack of ‘cut lithium batteries and lithium contents’ from a garbage bag in the underground cellar.[38] The ‘lithium can be used as a reagent chemical, along with liquefied ammonia to convert pseudoephedrine into methyl-amphetamine’.[39] Two litre tins labelled ‘Diggers Toluene’ on the floor of the cellar contained acetone and oxazolidine. The latter is formed from a chemical process involving ephedrine or pseudoephedrine.[40] Five hundred grams of sulphur was found within a cardboard box on a table in the cellar.[41] Potassium persulphate,[42] ammonia solution sampled from one of seven 50 ml plastic bottles,[43] a glass bottle containing 20 ml of predominantly styrene and a kilogram of glucose powder were found on a table in the cellar.[44] Aluminium shavings were found later the same day at Mr Bilac’s Parafield Gardens home.[45]
[38] Exhibit P27, p16 CSM096 seen in photographs 40 and 41 of Exhibit P4.
[39] T415.32-.36.
[40] T426.23-.38, CSM037.
[41] T428.15-429.19, CSM049.
[42] T429.21-430.7, CSM052.
[43] T424.9-.17, 431.22-.38, CSM60.
[44] Exhibit P27, CSM23, Exhibit P2, photograph 62, T424.9-.17.
[45] T250.2-.20, Exhibit P12, photographs 697-699.
Dr Cox readily agreed with the proposition put to him by defence counsel that ‘no reaction was occurring at the time which, if continued, would have resulted in methylamphetamine’.[46]
[46] T454.35-.38.
The process of manufacture - MDMA
The process taking place in two large glass jars on a ground floor table when the police gained entry was the extraction of piperine from pepper by dissolution in isopropyl alcohol.[47] Dr Cox described this as ‘a starting point for the manufacture of MDMA’,[48] and ‘consistent with what I would expect for the first stage of trying to obtain a purified form of piperine from pepper’.[49] This was achieved by dissolving piperine in isopropanol and removing from it the majority of the unwanted components of the pepper.[50] Under cross-examination Dr Cox elaborated further on this process:[51]
So the first step from piperonal to MDMA is to react piperonal with nitroethane, rather than nitromethane. Nitroethane was not located amongst the items, and also a base is required to catalyse that reaction. There are many different types of bases which could be used such as ammonium acetate, butylamine, methylamine, cyclohexylamine.
[47] T348.29-349.8, T445.28-.31.
[48] T346.12-.17.
[49] T349.18-.24.
[50] T350.4-.9.
[51] T505.9-.15.
This was the very process taking place on the ground floor table in the alcove area seen in Exhibit P4, photographs 31, 33 and 34,[52] even though additional steps were required to produce MDMA.[53] The 30 g of pepper available to Mr Bilac might have produced just 3 g of MDMA.[54]
[52] T445.28-.34.
[53] T445.19-.26, T505.4-.16, T505.31-506.8.
[54] T451.29-.36.
The ‘unusual’ combination of chemicals not present or were not otherwise required in the process and manufacture of illicit drugs, included biphenyl, florine, an unidentified liquid, thiourea and sodium bisulphate, sodium acetate, zinc and dinitrobenzene.[55]
[55] T422.14-431, T434.23.
Taking part in the process of manufacture
Prior to the insertion of s 33LC(3) into the Controlled Substances Act, s 32(4) thereof provided that taking part in the process of manufacture included ‘taking or participating’ in:
… any step, or causes any step to be taken, in the process of that manufacture, production, sale, supply or administration.
This definition was interpreted in R v Randylle,[56] to encompass:
[43] … a step in the process of manufacture … by someone who does not have all of the equipment or chemicals required to complete the process. Such a step could be taken before any chemical reaction is produced by the use or treatment of consumables. The process of production can be broken into stages, that might be conducted at different places and by different people and on different days. If the evidence establishes that that is what was intended, an act or event which in isolation might not appear to be a step in the process of production may, properly understood, be found to be such a step. All of these things have to be considered.
[44] There is no doubt in my mind that acquiring and setting up the equipment needed to manufacture a drug or substance (or part only of the equipment) could amount to the taking of a step in the process of manufacture (depending of course on what other evidence there is), even though one might say that this is preparatory to the manufacture of the drug, referring to the use and treatment of the consumables as the object of the exercise. Once again, the answer to the statutory question would depend on all of the facts of the case.
These principles were accepted in R v Vaccaro,[57] as applying to the present definition of ‘taking part in the manufacture of …’.[58]
[56] (2006) 95 SASR 574, [43]-[44].
[57] (2017) 127 SASR 284.
[58] Ibid [32].
It is clear that an accused person cannot be convicted of taking a step in the process of manufacture if that process has not commenced and that the process of manufacture may be satisfied by a variety of means: Re Avory: Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2003).[59]
[59] (2003) 87 SASR 392[96], [105].
Trial directions
Before the closing addresses, the trial judge attained the assent of prosecuting counsel that he pitched his case ‘on the basis that [the accused] engaged in the process [of manufacture] for the purposes of ultimately making methylamphetamine or ecstasy as the case may be?’.[60] The prosecutor addressed the jury on the basis that there were two steps in the process of manufacture in this manner:[61]
The prosecution says that with respect to each count the steps were as follows: firstly, the accused acquired equipment, substances and materials and secondly, the accused stored equipment, substances and materials. It is only necessary for the prosecution to prove one of those steps, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove each of those steps and with respect to each of the counts that's the basis of the prosecution case.
[60] T619.3-.12.
[61] T629.3-629.11.
More specifically with respect to count 2 prosecuting counsel addressed the jury on the basis:[62]
… that the accused acquired equipment, substances and materials and stored equipment, substances and materials to undertake the process of manufacture of methylamphetamine shown in those photographs.
That process the prosecution relies upon is a process of distillation and refinement of racing fuel and nitromethane.
So the prosecution says that the steps taken by the accused is acquiring equipment and materials, as you can see in those photographs, for the purpose of distilling and refining racing fuel and then nitrate.
[62] T629.22-630.7.
The prosecutor then moved to count 3:[63]
With respect to count 3, the prosecution says that if you go to photographs 31, 33 and 34, the accused has acquired equipment, substances and materials, he stored equipment, substances and materials, to undertake the process of manufacture of MDMA, ecstasy, as shown in those photographs. The prosecution submits that the process involved is the extraction of piperine from pepper. That is what the prosecution relies upon in terms of those two manufacturing processes for count 2 and count 3.
[63] T630.8-630.17
When it came to the summing-up, the trial judge charged the jury on the same basis:[64]
The first of these elements requires the prosecution to prove that the accused took a step in the process of the manufacture of methylamphetamine in the sense that it must prove that he engaged in some activity which could lead to the creation of the drug. In this instance, the accused would have taken such a step if the prosecution proves that he acquired equipment, substances or materials which could be used in a step in the creation of methylamphetamine, or that he stored equipment, substances or materials which could be used in a step in the creation of methylamphetamine, or that he initiated some process which could eventually lead to the creation of methylamphetamine. If the prosecution proves that the accused engaged in any one of these steps, then this element of the charge is proved.
and later with respect to count 2:[65]
It can be seen that the essential feature of manufacturing is the engagement in some activity which, when combined with or followed by other activities or processes, has the capacity ultimately to lead to the creation of methylamphetamine and it follows that the prosecution does not have to prove that the accused created the finished product and nor does it have to prove that everything which he would have needed to do so was then and there on the premises and available for use.
[64] Summing-up, p 7.7.
[65] Summing-up, p 8.5.
As to count 3 his Honour directed the jury:[66]
This brings me to count 3, which alleges that the accused manufactured MDMA, or ecstasy, for sale and this charge relates to the process which was taking place on the table in the south-east corner of the ground floor and the equipment and materials which were being used. The process and the equipment can be seen in photographs 31 and 34 of P4.
and still later:[67]
In this regard, you again have Dr Cox's evidence that what was occurring was the extraction of piperine from pepper and that piperine can lead to piperonal which can, in turn, be converted to ecstasy. The accused says that he was in fact engaged in the extraction of piperine for entirely innocent purposes.
[66] Summing-up, p 8.6.
[67] Summing-up, p 8.9.
His Honour made it perfectly clear that the steps as were taken must be done ‘with the intention, or the purpose in mind, of creating methylamphetamine …’ [and] ‘… was in fact intent on creating ecstasy’ with the intent of selling at least some of them.[68] No exception was taken to these directions. No complaint was made by defence counsel that the basis on which the charges were left to the jury were inappropriate, incomplete or too narrow.
[68] Summing-up, p 8.2, 18.7.
Process of manufacture – analysis
It is clear that not all the chemicals necessary to complete the respective conversion processes were present. It is equally clear that numerous other chemicals and liquids were present which had nothing to do with, or otherwise had remote connections to those processes. The question for the court is however whether what was available and what was transpiring on the premises was sufficient to amount to the process of manufacture. According to the evidence of Dr Cox, what was going on in the subject premises on 18 March, 2015 was the distillation of the model aeroplane fuel in the cellar and the extraction of piperine from pepper upstairs.
The presence of such a large variety of chemicals, the sophisticated - albeit untidy - nature of the apparatus involved, together with the degree of organisation necessary, indicate Mr Bilac had a strong interest and knowledge of the chemicals and the chemical reactions involved. Describing the cellar as ‘a safe house’ was hardly consistent with its structure and content. In one sense the degree of sophisticated knowledge involved supported his defence. As against that, the entire operation was undertaken in secretive circumstances and required a significant level of technical knowledge and planning to bring about the two processes that were taking place at the time.
Process of manufacture – methylamphetamine - analysis
It can be accepted that the process of purification of nitromethane from the fuel by way of distillation was an early step in the process of the manufacture of methyamphetamine, and that a number of further steps were required involving a number of other chemicals, some of which were not in the possession of Mr Bilac before that complex process could proceed to completion. Nonetheless, the expert evidence given in the trial, convincingly established that this process was ‘a step in the process of manufacture’ of methylamphetamine. Mr Bilac acquired, stored and concealed the equipment, substances or materials found in the building, which gave him the capacity to undertake the non-exhaustive steps prescribed by s 33LC(2) and (3) of the Controlled Substances Act, as individually constituting a step in the process of manufacture when done for the purpose of manufacture. Mr Bilac’s alternative explanation that he was constructing hydrogen fuel cells was unconvincing on its face, and was equally unsupported by any evidence that his project was practical or even feasible.
It was therefore clearly open to a reasonable jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, both that the process was in fact a step in the manufacture of methylamphetamine and that Mr Bilac knew and intended it to be so.
Process of manufacture – MDMA - analysis
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.
0
9
1