R v Bradley - [2009] NTSC 30

R v Bradley [2009] NTSC 30

PARTIES: THE QUEEN
v
BRADLEY, STEPHEN JOHN
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE
NORTHERN TERRITORY
EXERCISING TERRITORY
JURISDICTION
FILE NO: SC 20901159
DELIVERED: 29 June 2009
HEARING DATE: 17 June 2009
DECISION OF: SOUTHWOOD J
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – Supply and possession of drugs – Multiple counts on indictment – Application to quash indictment – Double jeopardy – Abuse of process – Double punishment – Application dismissed.
Criminal Code (NT) s 339; Misuse of Drugs Act (NT) ss 3, 5 and 9.
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; R v Langdon [2004] 11 VR 18, applied.
REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Solicitors: The Crown: Dr N Rogers
The Defence: R Goldflam
The Crown: Office of Director of Public
Prosecutions
The Defence: Northern Territory Legal Aid
Commission
Judgment category classification: B

Judgment ID Number: Sou0907
Number of pages: 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
R v Bradley [2009] NTSC 30

No SC 20901159

BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
AND:
STEPHEN JOHN BRADLEY

CORAM: SOUTHWOOD J
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 29 June 2009)

Introduction

Stephen John Bradley, the offender, has made an application under s 339 of
the Criminal Code (NT) to quash or partly quash the indictment the Director
of Public Prosecutions has filed in the proceeding.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has charged the offender with two

counts on an indictment dated 15 June 2009. Count one on the indictment
pleads that contrary to s 5(1) and (2)(b)(iii) of the Misuse of Drugs Act
(NT), on 7 January 2009 in Alice Springs, the offender unlawfully supplied
908 grams of cannabis which is a commercial quantity of cannabis. Count

two on the indictment pleads that contrary to s 9(1) and (2)(d) of the Misuse
of Drugs Act (NT), on 8 January 2009 in Alice Springs, the offender
unlawfully possessed 913.1 grams of cannabis which is a commercial
quantity of cannabis.

In support of the two counts on the indictment the Crown relies on the
following facts:
The offender is a 49 year old male who resides at unit 4/85 Lydavale drove his motor vehicle to Adelaide. While in Adelaide he received 908 grams of cannabis on credit from an unknown source. He placed the cannabis, which was in two cryovac bags, under the backseat in his motor vehicle.
On 7 January 2009, he drove back to Alice Springs. He arrived at his
residence at night on 7 January 2009. The drive from Adelaide to
Alice Springs took 15 hours. After he arrived at his residence he took
the two cryovac bags of cannabis out of his motor vehicle, he placed
the cannabis in his unit and he remained in possession of the
cannabis.
On Thursday 8 January 2009, a search warrant was executed by
police at the offender’s residence. During the course of the search,
police officers located the following items: the two sealed cryovac
bags of cannabis plant material…

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 Bradley

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley [2009] NTSC 30
Case: [2009] NTSC 30
Decision Date: 29/06/2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dealt with an application by Stephen John Bradley to quash or partly quash the indictment against him. The Director of Public Prosecutions had charged Bradley with two counts on an indictment, relating to the supply and possession of a commercial quantity of cannabis. Bradley argued that the prosecution of the second count would subject him to double jeopardy and would be an abuse of process. The court had to decide whether the charging of both counts on the indictment subjected Bradley to double jeopardy.

The court found that the indictment as currently pleaded did not subject Bradley to double jeopardy. The court held that while the possession of 908 grams of the same cannabis was common to both counts one and two on the indictment, the same criminal conduct was not the subject of both counts. Different dates were specified in each count on the indictment and the criminal conduct engaged in by Bradley was discrete and confined to what occurred on separate days. A single series of events can give rise to different criminal offences to which different penalties attach. The indictment as currently framed reflected all of Bradley's criminal conduct and enabled the imposition of punishment that would truly reflect the criminality of his conduct. Therefore, the charging of both counts on the indictment was not an abuse of process.

The court dismissed Bradley's application under s 339 of the Criminal Code (NT). The court held that there were elements of both count one and count two that were not common to the other count on the indictment. Count one on the indictment did not involve possession of the cannabis on 8 January 2009, knowledge of the possession of the cannabis on 8 January 2009 or the possession of the additional 5.1 grams of cannabis. Count two on the indictment did not involve the transport of the cannabis to Alice Springs, the intention to transport the cannabis to Alice Springs, or the possession of the cannabis on 7 January 2009. Neither offence was wholly included in the other.

The court ordered that the offender’s application under s 339 of the Criminal Code (NT) be dismissed.

Orders