R v Cong Tan Tran
[2012] ACTSC 56
•18 April 2012
R v CONG TAN TRAN
[2012] ACTSC 56 (18 April 2012)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
No. SCC 138 of 2011
Judge: Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 18 April 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 138 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
CONG TAN TRAN
ORDER
Judge: Nield AJ
Date: 18 April 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
A verdict of not guilty be entered in respect of counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Indictment.
A few minutes after 10 am on 23 September 2010 Constable Benjamin Owens saw the accused, Mr Cong Tan Tran, driving a motor vehicle along a street in Gungahlin in the ACT whilst he was using a hand held mobile telephone. The accused held the telephone in his left hand at his left ear.
After activating the siren and lights of the police motor vehicle, Constable Owens followed the accused’s motor vehicle from one street onto another street, where the accused stopped his motor vehicle. Constable Owens stopped the police vehicle behind the accused’s motor vehicle.
After their motor vehicles had been stopped, Constable Owens left his motor vehicle and walked towards the accused’s motor vehicle and the accused left his motor vehicle and walked towards Constable Owens. On their reaching each other, Constable Owens asked the accused some questions and the accused answered those questions.
During the course of their conversation, Constable Owens noticed some things about the accused which caused him to suspect that the accused was under the influence of something, probably a drug, and he saw a small resealable plastic bag in the map pocket of the accused’s motor vehicle’s open driver’s door that tended to confirm his suspicion that the accused was under the influence of some drug. The plastic bag in the map pocket can be seen in Exhibit C5.
In view of his suspicion, Constable Owens asked the accused whether he had any drugs on him, and, when the accused replied that he had drugs on him, Constable Owens told the accused that he was going to search him and his motor vehicle. On this being said, the accused returned to his motor vehicle and took hold of a small black coloured carry bag which was lying on the motor vehicle’s foot well behind the front passenger’s seat and he handed the bag to Constable Owens. The place in the motor vehicle where the bag was lying can be seen in Exhibit C1 and part of the bag can be seen in Exhibit C2.
After receiving the black carry bag from the accused, Constable Owens searched the accused and then searched the accused’s motor vehicle.
An examination of the contents of the black carry bag revealed, inter alia:
(1)A small blue coloured tin containing a small resealable plastic bag containing a small quantity of vegetable matter. The tin, bag and vegetable matter can be seen in Exhibit C7. The tin, bag and vegetable matter are referred to as item number 006 on Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 006 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit 7. The vegetable matter was analysed and found to be cannabis.
(2)A small round glass jar containing a white crystal-like substance. The jar and substance can be seen in Exhibit C8. The jar and substance are referred to as item number 009 on Property Seizure Record number A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 009 in the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The substance was weighed and found to weigh 1.338 grams and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of not less than 24.2 per cent or 0.32 gram as the base - see ACTGAL Identifier T10/1848A (Exhibit A1).
(3)A stainless steel jar containing a crystal-like substance. This jar does not appear in any exhibit. The jar and substance are referred to as item number 010 on Property Seizure Record number A233300 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit 010 in the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The jar is described as a metal and glass screw top container on ACTGAL Identifier T10/1848B (Exhibit A2). The substance was weighed and found to weigh 4.744 grams and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of not less than 30.6 per cent or 1.45 grams as the base (see Exhibit A2).
(4)A small black box. The box can be seen in Exhibit C8 and C11. The box is described as a jewellery box - see Exhibit C18. The box is referred to in items 008 to 0013 inclusive on Property Seizure Record number A233309 - see Exhibit G, but it is not referred to separately on that record. The box contained four small resealable plastic bags, one containing a crystal-like substance, two other small plastic bags each containing traces of powder and one plastic wrapping containing powder. The bags and wrapping and their contents are referred to as items 011, 012 and 013 on Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibits number 011, 012 and 013 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The crystal-like substance and powder in five of the bags was weighed and found to weigh 2.260 grams and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of 23.30 per cent or 0.52 gram as the base - see ACTGAL Identified T10/1848E (Exhibit A3). The powder in the remaining bag was weighed and found to weigh 3.109 grams and analysed and found to contain heroin of a purity of approximately 3.70 per cent or 0.11 gram as the base - see ACTGAL Identifier T10/1848D (Exhibit A4). The powder in the plastic wrapping was weighed and found to weigh 1.43 grams and analysed and found to contain heroin of a purity of 12.40 per cent or 0.17 gram as the base - see ACTGAL Identifier T10/1848C (Exhibit A5).
(5)Eight red coloured plastic straws. The straws can be seen in Exhibit D. The straws are referred to as item 001 on Property Seizure Record A233310 - see Exhibit G.
(6)A wallet containing, inter alia, a Commonwealth Bank of Australia Mastercard plastic card issued in the name of Mr Cuong M Hoang, and a folded piece of foil. The wallet and foil can be seen in Exhibit C14. The unfolded piece of foil can be seen in Exhibit C15. The card is Exhibit E. The wallet and card are referred to as item number 003 on Property Seizure Record A233310 and the piece of foil is referred to as item number 004 on Property Seizure Record number A233312.
A search of the accused by Constable Owens revealed, inter alia:
(1)A wallet containing $590 in Australian notes and two small resealable plastic bags each containing a crystal-like substance. The wallet and the two plastic bags can be seen in Exhibit C2. The two plastic bags can be seen in Exhibit C3. The money can be seen in Exhibit C17. The wallet is referred to as item number 001 on Property Seizure Record A233265 - see Exhibit G. The two small plastic bags are referred to as item number 003 on Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 003 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The money is referred to as item number 001 on Property Seizure Record A233264 - see Exhibit G. The crystal-like substance contained in the two bags was weighed and found to weigh 1.272 grams and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of 60.10 per cent or 0.76 gram as the base - see ACTGAL Identifier T10/1847A (Exhibit A6).
(2)A cigarette packet containing eight cigarettes and a small brown coloured glass bottle with black lid containing powder. The packet, cigarettes and bottle can be seen in Exhibit C2. The packet and cigarettes are referred to as item number 002 on Property Seizure Record A233265 - see Exhibit G, and the bottle containing the powder is referred to as item number 005 on Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 005 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The powder was weighed and found to weigh 0.239 gram and analysed and found to contain heroin of a purity of 11.5 per cent or 0.02 as the base.
A search of the accused's motor vehicle by Constable Owens revealed, inter alia:
(1)A small glass vial with a white coloured lid containing a crystal-like substance in the vehicle's ashtray. This vial does not appear in any exhibit. The vial and substance are referred to as item number 014 in Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 014 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The substance was weighed and found to weigh 0.275 gram, and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of 59.10 per cent or 0.16 gram as the base - see ACTGAL T10/1849A (Exhibit A8).
(2)A small resealable plastic bag containing a brown coloured crystal in the vehicle's driver's door map pocket. The plastic bag can be seen in Exhibits C5 and C6. The bag and crystal are referred to as item number 016 on Property Seizure Record A233309 - see Exhibit G, and as exhibit number 016 on the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The crystal was weighed and found to weigh 0.588 gram, and analysed and found to contain methylamphetamine of a purity of 27.3 per cent or 0.16 gram as the base - see ACTGAL T10/1849C (Exhibit A9).
Also found by Constable Owens somewhere, either on the accused or in the black carry bag or in the accused's motor vehicle, was a glass pipe with which to smoke methylamphetamine. The stem of the pipe can be seen in Exhibit D. The stem would have a bulb at one end. The end from which the bulb has been broken can be seen in Exhibit D. The pipe was not entered by Constable Owens in the Property Seizure Record, however it is referred to as exhibit number 017 in the Drugs Register - see Exhibit F. The glass tube contained residue of both methylamphetamine and amphetamine - see ACTGAL Identifier T10/1849D (Exhibit A10).
Also found by Constable Owens in one of the two wallets, either the one on the accused or the one in the black carry bag, were two pages pulled from a spiral note pad on which pages names and numbers had been written. The pages can be seen in Exhibit C16. Constable Owens did not seize the pages because he thought that they were not important or significant. He said that everything, including the pages, not seized by him had been returned to the accused.
Accordingly, Constable Owens found 16 items containing a prohibited drug, or the residue of a prohibited drug. Putting aside the cannabis found in the blue coloured tin - see para 7(1) above - because it is not relevant, and putting aside the residue of prohibited drugs on the glass pipe - see para 10 above - because the residue could not be weighed, the other 14 items contained a prohibited drug or the residue of a prohibited drug having a gross weight of 15.255 grams with 11 of the items having a weight of pure methylamphetamine of 3.370 grams and the other three of the items having a weight of pure heroin of 0.300 gram as shown in the following schedule -
| Item containing the drug | Paragraph | Gross weight of the drug in grams | Weight in grams of pure methylamphetamine | Weight in grams of pure heroin |
| 1 glass jar | 7(2) | 1.338 | 0.320 | |
| 1 stainless steel jar | 7(3) | 4.744 | 1.450 | |
| 5 plastic bags | 7(4) | 2.260 | 0.520 | |
| 1 plastic bag | 7(4) | 3.109 | 0.110 | |
| 1 plastic wrapping | 7(4) | 1.430 | 0.170 | |
| 2 plastic bags | 8(1) | 1.272 | 0.760 | |
| 1 glass bottle | 8(2) | 0.239 | 0.020 | |
| 1 glass vial | 9(1) | 0.275 | 0.160 | |
| 1 plastic bag | 9(2) | 0.588 | 0.160 | |
| 15.255 | 3.370 | 0.300 |
After having examined the contents of the black carry bag, and after having searched the accused and his motor vehicle, Constable Owens arrested the accused and then took him to Gungahlin Police Station, at where later he was charged with, inter alia:
(1)trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603(7) of the Criminal Code; and
(2)possessing a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, for the purpose of supplying it to another person, contrary to s 164(2)(c) of the Drugs of Dependence Act.
When they were at the police station, Constable Owens saw that the accused was becoming increasingly drowsy. He had appeared drowsy when Constable Owens spoke with him after having stopped the motor vehicle that he had been driving. Constable Owens spoke with the accused in a cell at the police station in the presence of Senior Constable Campbell and he was told by the accused that he had used heroin and methylamphetamine before being stopped when driving his motor vehicle. As he was concerned for the accused's wellbeing, Constable Owens contacted Dr Pareich, a forensic medical officer, who examined the accused at 1.34 pm on 23 September 2010 and determined that he should be transferred to hospital by ambulance - see Exhibit H1. Accordingly, the accused was taken by ambulance to the Emergency Department of Calvary Hospital, at where, after being examined by Dr Brooling, he was kept for observation before being returned to police custody - see Exhibit H2. Later the accused was examined by Dr Kraus, a forensic medical officer, who determined that the accused should be kept under hourly observation for eight hours - see Exhibit H3. He was released from police custody on 24 September 2010.
In due course, the ACT DPP filed an Indictment which charged that on 23 September 2010 the accused:
(1)Trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine.
(2)In the alternative to count 1, possessed a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, for the purpose of supplying it to another person.
(3)Further to counts 1 and 2, trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely heroin.
(4)In the alternative to count 3, possessed a drug of dependence, namely heroin, for the purpose of supplying it to another person.
On 2 August 2011 the accused signed an Election for Trial by Judge Alone in the presence of his then solicitor, after having been advised by his then solicitor as to the effect of the election.
On 11 April 2012 the accused appeared before me to stand his trial. He was represented by Mr Livingston, of counsel. The Crown Prosecutor presented an Indictment which contained the four accounts referred to in paragraph 15 above. Before the accused was arraigned, Mr Livingston raised a question as to the conduct of the trial because, in relation to counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment, the Crown bore the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty, but in relation to counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, as the quantity of methylamphetamine exceeded the prescribed quantity of 2 grams, the accused bore the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that he was not guilty, as the Crown could rely upon the presumption that he possessed the methylamphetamine with the intention of selling it or some of it - see section 604(1)(d) of the Criminal Code. After hearing from Mr Livingston and the Crown Prosecutor, I decided to hear the Crown's case before deciding whether to have a trial as to counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment separately from a trial as to counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment. Accordingly, the accused was arraigned and he pleaded that he was not guilty of each count of the Indictment.
During the trial I heard evidence from:
(1)Mr Daniel Andres, a forensic chemist;
(2)Constable Owens;
(3)Constable Amanda Canham;
(4)Senior Constable Campbell;
(5)Acting Sergeant Damien Munro;
(6)The accused, Mr Tran.
and I received the following exhibits:
A. 10 certificates of analysis of a drug;
B. spreadsheet prepared by Mr Andres showing details of his analyses of the drugs;
C. 17 photographs taken by Constable Owens showing the accused's motor vehicle's foot well behind the front passenger’s seat and the various items that Constable Owens found in the black carry bag, on the accused and in the accused's motor vehicle, and an index of those photographs;
D. A photograph taken by Constable Owens showing eight red coloured plastic straws and the stem of a glass pipe used to smoke methylamphetamine;
E. A Commonwealth Bank of Australia Mastercard plastic card issued in the name of Mr Cuong M Hoang;
F. Three Drugs Register pages on which Constable Owens had recorded details of the drugs that he had seized from the accused;
G. Seven Property Seizure Record pages on which Constable Owens had recorded details of the property that he had seized from the accused;
H. Medical advice forms signed by Dr Pareich - Exhibit H1, and Dr Kraus - Exhibit H3, and the clinical notes of Calvary Hospital - Exhibit H2.
After Mr Livingston closed the accused's case, I returned to the question raised earlier by Mr Livingston whether I should order that the trial be one related to all counts of the Indictment or on related to either counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment or counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment only. I decided to separate counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment from counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment and that the trial would relate to counts 1 and 2 only.
The Crown's case is a simple one - because the accused possessed more than 2 grams of pure methylamphetamine, with 2 grams being the prescribed amount for methylamphetamine, he is presumed to have possessed the drug with the intention of selling it or some of it.
However, the Crown Prosecutor said that, as well as relying upon the presumption to prove that the accused possessed the methylamphetamine with the intention of selling it or some of it, the Crown relied upon a circumstantial case to prove that the accused either possessed the methylamphetamine with the intention of selling it or some of it - s 602(e) and s 603(7) of the Criminal Code - or possessed the methylamphetamine for the purpose of supplying it or some of it to someone else - s 164(2)(c) of the Drugs of Dependence Act.
The accused's case is an equally simple one - he regularly and heavily used methylamphetamine and heroin, and he possessed the various amounts of methylamphetamine or heroin for his own use.
As I am the Judge of the facts as well as the Judge of the law, I recognise that the following principles, which are designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial according to law, govern a trial:
(a)The Crown has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused person.
(b)The accused person does not have any burden to prove anything.
(c)The level or standard of proof is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(d)The accused person is presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is proved by the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
(e)I must bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidence. I must view it coldly, clinically and dispassionately, and I must not let emotion enter into the decision making process.
(f)I must assess the evidence rationally, using logic and common sense.
(g)I may accept a witness's evidence wholly or in part, or reject a witness's evidence wholly or in part.
(h)If the accused person adduces evidence which is consistent with innocence, he or she does not have to prove it, rather the Crown must disprove it or show it to be irrelevant.
(i)If the accused person gives evidence on oath or affirmation, something that he or she is not required to do, he or she becomes a witness in his or her trial and I may accept his or her evidence in whole or in part, with his or her evidence not being any better or any worse than the evidence of any other witness simply because he or she is the accused person.
(j)If the accused person gives or adduces evidence, he or she does not have any burden to prove anything.
(k)If the accused person does not give evidence, his or her silence in Court is not evidence. An accused person's silence in Court must not be held against him or her. An accused person's silence in Court must not be used to add to the evidence or to fill any gaps in the evidence. The evidence must be assessed without reference to the accused person's silence in Court.
(l)If the evidence satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of the accused person's guilt, then the accused person loses the presumption of innocence and I must find him or her to be guilty.
(m)If, however, the evidence fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of the accused person's guilt, then the accused person remains presumed to be innocent and I must find him or her to be not guilty.
(n)If the accused person has a burden to prove something, then the level or standard of proof is proof on the balance of probabilities.
The issue in the trial is whether the accused has satisfied me as the Judge of the facts on the balance of probabilities that he possessed the product containing methylamphetamine found in his possession on 23 September 2010 otherwise than with the intention of selling any of it (the first count) and otherwise than for the purpose of supplying it or some of it to another person (the second count).
I accept the evidence of the witnesses called by the Crown Prosecutor. Although Mr Andres and Constable Owens were cross-examination by Mr Livingston, nothing that either said during cross-examination undermined his evidence-in-chief; rather, cross-examination further explained much of his evidence-in-chief. Also, although Constable Campbell was cross-examined by Mr Livingston, nothing he said during cross-examination undermined his evidence-in-chief. Neither Constable Canham nor Constable Munro was cross-examined by Mr Livingston. Really, at the close of the accused's case none of the evidence presented by the Crown Prosecutor was disputed or challenged by the accused.
I accept the evidence of the accused that he were a heavy and regular user of both methylamphetamine and heroin, that he used methylamphetamine and heroin three or four times a day, that he smoked methylamphetamine using a glass pipe to inhale the smoke, and that he heated heroin on a piece of foil and inhaled the smoke. I am not at all surprised that he had the usual paraphernalia of a drug user in his possession when he was arrested. However, I am surprised, if he were a supplier of methylamphetamine or heroin or both, that he did not have a set of electronic scales in his possession when he was arrested, because a supplier of a prohibited drug would not supply a grain more or less than the agreed amount to a buyer of the drug for fear that supplying more would reduce his profit or supplying less would expose him to a violent response.
I have difficulty accepting the evidence of the accused that he did not recognise the two pages on which names and numbers were written - see Exhibit C16, that "Peter" travelled from Sydney to Canberra to supply him with an "eight ball" of methylamphetamine and that all the money found in his wallet was his wages from his employment - see Exhibit C17. Clearly, his weekly wage would not have been enough to meet the cost of his weekly drug use. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the accused had a "selective memory" and, although I agree with her that some of his answers to questions seemed to be implausible, I wonder whether that was the result of a drug user being unable to remember when and from whom and in what amount he obtained his drugs, or of the English language not being the accused's first language. However, that said, the fact that I do not accept the evidence of the accused as to some facts does not mean that I should reject all of his evidence or his evidence as to other facts.
The Crown Prosecutor submitted that every piece of evidence suggested that the accused's possession of the product containing methylamphetamine had a "commercial flavour", that his possession of the product containing methylamphetamine was with a "commercial intent". The accused had an amount of product containing methylamphetamine in seven different plastic bags, a glass jar, a stainless steel jar, a piece of plastic wrapping and a glass vial, a "tick list" and $590 cash money in his possession. The Crown Prosecutor relied upon the evidence of Mr Andres that some amounts of the product containing methylamphetamine could have been the produce of the same "cooked" batch and was different from the produce of another "cooked" batch because of the percentage of pure methylamphetamine in the product - see Exhibit B.
Mr Livingston submitted that the evidence upon which the Crown relies could be explained and simply proves that the accused was a regular and heavy user of products containing methylamphetamine and heroin, who would have been expected to have in his possession the items found in his possession when he was arrested.
I seriously doubt that a supplier of a prohibited drug would keep the drug that he intended to supply to users of it in the amounts of the products containing methylamphetamine which were found in the accused's possession or in the various receptacles in which the accused kept this product. None of the gross amounts of the product containing methylamphetamine found in the accused's possession matches an amount, such as a point or a gram or an eight ball or an ounce, usually supplied by a supplier of methylamphetamine. The gross weights of the product containing methylamphetamine and the manner in which the accused kept that product strongly suggest that he was simply a user of it, rather than a supplier or a user who supplies to meet his own habit.
Although I do not doubt the evidence of Mr Andres, I do not accept that the product containing methylamphetamine found in the accused's possession was necessarily from different batches merely because of the percentage of pure methylamphetamine in the product. However, accepting that some of the product containing methylamphetamine produced in a batch different from some of the other product containing methylamphetamine does not mean that the accused did not obtain the different products containing methylamphetamine from different suppliers at different times solely for his own use. I doubt that a regular and heavy user of methylamphetamine would wait until he had used all of his last purchase before purchasing another amount, rather I would expect him to, as it were, replenish his stock before it ran out. I am not surprised that the accused possessed product containing methylamphetamine which may have been produced by different people at different times.
The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the most incriminating piece of evidence against the accused is the so called "tick list" - see Exhibit C16. I have already said that I have difficulty accepting the evidence of the accused as to the two pages on which names and numbers are written. However, without more, I am not prepared to accept that the people whose names appear on one of the pages are people to whom the accused sold or supplied a prohibited drug on credit, or that the amounts shown on that page are amounts of money owed by the named people to the accused. The pages may well record the names of people to whom the accused owes money and the amounts of money owed by the accused to those people.
The Crown Prosecutor submitted that another incriminating piece of evidence is the Commonwealth Bank of Australia Mastercard plastic card in the name of Mr Cuong M Hoang - see Exhibit E, which was found in the possession of the accused when he was arrested. Mr Hoang uses the names "Dominic" and "Dom". Mr Hoang is a friend of the accused. Mr Hoang supplied heroin to the accused. Police believe Mr Hoang to be a supplier of prohibited drugs. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that the accused possessed Mr Hoang's card so that he could withdraw money from Mr Hoang's bank account. The accused said that he had Mr Hoang's card so that he could deposit money into Mr Hoang's bank account. I am not prepared to reject the accused's evidence as to his reason for having Mr Hoang's card in his possession.
As I have said already, the Crown Prosecutor submitted that the various pieces of evidence taken together, like strands in a rope, point logically and rationally to the conclusion that the accused possessed the product containing methylamphetamine for the purpose of selling some of it, whereas Mr Livingston submitted that the same pieces of evidence point to the accused being in possession of the product containing methylamphetamine to use it and not to sell any of it. I agree with Mr Livingston.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused possessed the product containing methylamphetamine found in his possession on 23 September 2010 otherwise than with the intention of selling any of it, and otherwise for the purpose of supplying it or some of it to another person.
Accordingly, I find the accused to be not guilty of counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment.
On 16 April 2012 I told the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Livingston that I intended to find the accused to be not guilty of counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment and I asked whether, in view of that, they consented to my deciding whether the accused was guilty or not guilty in relation to counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment. They consented to my giving judgment on the evidence already adduced by them.
Accordingly, for the reasons that I have given in relation to counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that on 23 September 2010 the accused possessed the product containing heroin with the intention of selling some of it or for the purpose of supplying it or some of it to another person.
Accordingly, I find the accused to be not guilty of counts 3 and 4 of the Indictment.
I certify that the preceding (39) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Acting Justice Nield.
Associate: Petra Halova
Date: 24 April 2012
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Amanda Jubb
Solicitor for the Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions for the ACT
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Ray Livingston
Solicitor for the Respondent: Craig Lynch and Associates
Date of hearing: 11 - 12 April 2012
Date of judgment: 18 April 2012
0
0
0