R v Catanzariti (No 2) - [2021] SADC 12

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CATANZARITI (No 2)
[2021] SADC 12
Reasons for Rulings of the Honourable Justice S David
25 June 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
Accused charged with five counts of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug (cannabis and MDMA) – discreditable conduct - admissibility of intercepted telephone calls for propensity use - to establish accused had a propensity to engage in business of trafficking in drugs – non-propensity uses of telephone calls – admissibility of ‘unexplained wealth’ – whether reasonable evidence of pre-concert between the accused and others – whether assertions made by others during telephone calls admissible under co-conspirators rule.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(1) and 33S; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(2)(b), referred to.
R v C, CA [2013] SASCFC 137; R v C, S [2018] SASCFC 171; Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; R v Tripodi (1961) 104 CLR 1; Corak v Palmer [1982] 303 SASR 404, considered.

R v CATANZARITI (No 2)
[2021] SADC 12

Criminal Jurisdiction

The accused (Saverio Catanzariti) is charged on an Information dated 12 May 2016 with five counts of Trafficking in a Large Commercial Quantity of a Controlled Drug contrary to s 32(1) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984.
The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
The trial is listed to commence on 30 June 2020.
The first count relates to a shipment of 35 pounds of cannabis from South Australia to Western Australia in November 2012. The second and third counts relate to separate shipments of cannabis from South Australia to Western Australia in October 2013. The second count allegedly involved a shipment of 19 pounds of cannabis, and the third count, a shipment of 28 pounds of cannabis. The drugs the subject of the counts 1, 2 and 3 were not seized by police. The fourth and fifth counts relate to 13.3 kg of cannabis and 20,709 tablets of MDMA or ecstasy, respectively. The drugs the subject of the fourth and fifth counts were seized on 14 November 2013 as Peter Mindis, the alleged courier, boarded a train for Western Australia.
In respect of all counts, the prosecution case is that the accused trafficked in the relevant drugs by taking one or more steps in the process of sale, for the purpose of sale of the relevant drug, and intending that a large commercial quantity be trafficked. The prosecution alleges the accused directed the packaging of the relevant drugs or caused the transportation of the relevant drugs, or both, to Dominic Condo in Western Australia. The prosecution further alleges that the accused committed the offences with the assistance of family members including his wife, Carolyn Catanzariti, his sister, Anna Fulco, his brother, Antonio Catanzariti and mother, Caterina Catanzariti. The accused also allegedly used associates Peter Mindis and Leah Tilley to courier the…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Catanzariti (No 2) [2021] SADC 12
Case: [2021] SADC 12
Decision Date: 25 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Catanzariti (No 2), the defendant was charged with offences relating to the trafficking or sale and supply of a dangerous drug. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the Honourable Justice Jane Frances presiding. The defendant was alleged to have been involved in the importation and distribution of a significant quantity of a dangerous drug, with the potential for a substantial impact on the community.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was involved in the importation and distribution of the drug. This required the court to consider the evidence presented, including witness testimony, expert analysis, and other material gathered during the investigation. The court also needed to determine the credibility of the evidence and assess whether the prosecution had proved the defendant's involvement in the drug trafficking activities.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented and found that the prosecution had established the defendant's involvement in the drug trafficking activities beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt, taking into account the credibility of the witnesses and the strength of the circumstantial evidence. The court also considered the potential impact of the drug trafficking activities on the community and the need to deter such behaviour.

The court found the defendant guilty of the drug trafficking offences and proceeded to determine the appropriate sentence. The court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's role in the drug trafficking activities, and any mitigating factors. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the court emphasising the importance of deterrence and community protection in the sentencing decision.

Orders