R v Caridi No. DCCRM-02-1267 - [2003] SADC 45

R v Vincent Caridi
[2003] SADC 45
Judge Muecke
Criminal

At about 2.30 pm on Thursday 11 July 2002 a police officer was travelling north on Days Road, Regency Park when she saw the accused Vincent Caridi standing next to a white Nissan Bluebird. As the police vehicle in which she was travelling approached the Nissan she saw four people walk away from the accused and walk east across Days Road. She stopped the police vehicle and approached the accused who was at the driver’s side door of the vehicle. She asked the accused to come back to her vehicle and she there had a short conversation with him. She could smell cannabis on the accused and when she questioned him about this the accused said: “I’ve got a little bit in the car that’s what you can smell”. She asked another police officer to come to the scene to assist her in conducting a search of the accused.
Another police officer attended at the scene at about 2.45 pm that day. When he arrived he saw the accused standing next to the Nissan which was facing north on the western side of the road. He also saw a green Holden sedan parked on the opposite side of the road facing south. There were three males and one female standing beside that car.
As that police officer searched the accused the accused removed a packet of cigarettes from his pants pocket. The police officer looked in the packet and found 12 plastic press-seal bags containing a brown paste which he believed to be amphetamine. When he asked the accused “what’s this?”, the accused replied “you weren’t supposed to find that”.
When tested the brown paste was found to be methylamphetamine. The weights in each of the 12 bags ranged between .07 grams and .20 grams, and each was about 23% to 25.5% pure. Accordingly, the weight of methylamphetamine in each bag ranged between .01 grams to .04 grams.
The accused was interviewed on 11 July 2002. He was given his rights and he spoke to a solicitor. The accused informed police that the advice given to him was that he was not to say anything. The police officer said that in view of that she was not going to ask the accused any questions. She indicated that she was only going to refer to her notes as to the events that occurred on Days Road, Regency Park. The police officer then said:
... At about 2.30 today we stopped you on -, oh we didn’t stop you, you were on Days Road, Regency Park.
AMm, yes, mm hm.
QYou were in a white Nissan Bluebird, or you were outside a white Nissan Bluebird.
AYeah.
QYou were talking to about four, four persons - those persons were crossing the road.
ANo, not that’s not exactly what happened. I was inside the car, the girl just got out and the other people were already across the other side. They were going to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Caridi No. DCCRM-02-1267 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] SADC 45
Decision Date: 1 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vincent Caridi was heard by the South Australian District Court, presided over by Judge Muecke. The accused, Vincent Caridi, was charged with possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of supplying it to another person, and with unlawful possession of cash. The legal issue the court had to address was whether the evidence supported the charge of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of supply, or if it should be reduced to simple possession. The accused's legal representative argued that the evidence did not support the charge of possession for supply, and that a plea of simple possession should be entered instead. The Crown, however, argued that the evidence did support the charge of possession for supply.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and examined the record of interview given by the accused. It was noted that the accused had stated that he and three others had purchased the methylamphetamine together, and that he was holding it for them while they went to the hospital. The court concluded that the accused was in possession of three-quarters of the methylamphetamine for the purpose of supplying it to others, and the remaining quarter for his own use. The court found that the accused's possession was not as a bailee, and that there was no reasonable possibility that he was in possession of the majority of the methylamphetamine as a bailee. Therefore, the court refused the accused's application to set aside his plea.

In conclusion, the court found that the evidence supported the charge of possessing methylamphetamine for the purpose of supply and denied the accused's application to vacate his guilty plea. The case serves as a reminder that courts must carefully consider the evidence and legal principles when determining the appropriate charge for drug-related offences.

Orders