R v Catanzariti - [1995] SASC 5298

COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA MATHESON J

CWDS
Criminal law - particular offences - Conspiracy - accused charged with conspiring in South Australia to grow cannabis in the Northern Territory - whether filing of new information several days before hearing of pre-trial applications was an abuse of process - application to stay on that ground dismissed - whether charges alleging conspiracy in South Australia to grow cannabis in the Northern Territory contrary to the provisions of a Northern Territory statute are offences indictable in this State - consideration of s5c of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act - application under s281 of last mentioned Act to quash information upheld.

Board of Trade v Oven and Another (1957) AC 602; R v Cox (1968) 1 WLR 88; DPP v Withers (1975) AC 842;R 276; Attorney-General's Reference (No 1 of 1982)
(1983) 1 QB 751; Libman v R (1985) 21 DLR (4th) 174; Mayer v Henderson (1993) 68 A Crim R 155; Rona v District Court of South Australia and Another (1994) 63 SASR 223; Re Anne Hamilton-Byrne (1995) 1 VR 129, considered.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 3-4 October 1995 #DATE 18:10:1995 #ADD 27:11:1995

Counsel for Crown: Mr D R Whittle

Solicitors for Crown: DPP (SA)

Counsel for accused Catanzariti: Ms B J Powell QC with
Mr D J Wardle

Solicitors for accused Catanzariti: Douglas Wardle

Counsel for accused Curcio: Mr G M Mcgee

Solicitors for accused Curcio: Greg Mcgee

Counsel for accused Koukouvitakis: Mr W R Retalic

Solicitors for accused Koukouvitakis: Sykes Bidstrup

Counsel for accused D Perre: Mr M L Abbott QC

Solicitors for accused D Perre: David Stokes and
Associates

Counsel for accused F Perre: Mr D Y Sprod

Solicitors for accused F Perre: Scammell and Co

Counsel for accused Poulos: Mr R C Bleechmore

Solicitors for accused Poulos: Ralph C Bleechmore

Counsel for accused Romeo: Mr J D Edwardson

Solicitors for accused Romeo:: Mcgee and Associates

Counsel for accused C Smyrneos: Ms M E Shaw

Solicitors for C Smyrneos: Caldicott and Co

Counsel for accused S Smyrneos: Ms M E Shaw

Solicitors for S Smyrneos: Caldicott and Co

Counsel for accused Vottari: Ms M E Shaw

Solicitors for Vottari: Caldicott and Co

ORDER
Application granted.

JUDGE1 MATHESON J The case for the Director of Public Prosecutions, stated very briefly, is that the accused, all of whom allegedly lived in South Australia at any relevant time, agreed in this State to cultivate cannabis on a property called Hidden Valley near Katharine in the Northern Territory. It is alleged that some of the accused were the organisers, some supplied the fertiliser and equipment, some worked the crops and some harvested the crops, but there was some overlap of involvement. The crop or crops were allegedly sold in South Australia and the accused shared the proceeds. This judgment deals with two pre-trial applications, for the first of which at least it is necessary to be precise about the relevant procedural steps and the dates thereof.

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 Catanzariti

Details

AGLC: R v Catanzariti [1995] SASC 5298
Case: [1995] SASC 5298
Decision Date: 18 October 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Catanzariti, the accused were charged with conspiracy to grow cannabis in the Northern Territory, an offence that allegedly occurred in South Australia. The Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with deciding two pre-trial applications: one challenging the filing of a new information before the hearing of pre-trial applications and the other questioning whether the charges were offences indictable in South Australia. The court first dismissed the application to stay the proceedings on the ground of abuse of process, finding that the circumstances were distinct from those in previous cases and that the prosecution had not failed to comply with status conference directions. The court then turned to the issue of whether the charges were indictable in South Australia. Relying on several cases, the court concluded that the offences charged were not indictable in South Australia, as the cultivation of cannabis is not a crime at common law, and a conspiracy to cultivate it is not a crime at common law either. The court also held that the new information did not disclose an offence known to the law of South Australia and quashed the information accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a stay on the ground of abuse of process was dismissed, and the application to quash the information was granted. The information was quashed, and the case proceeded on the new information filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Orders