R v Evangelou - [2017] SADC 76

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Disputed Facts Hearing)
R v EVANGELOU
[2017] SADC 76
Ruling of Her Honour Judge Schammer
12 July 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
Defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in a controlled drug. Dispute as to whether the offending was part of an ongoing course of conduct of drug dealing by the defendant or whether the defendant's offending was confined to her allowing her premises to be used or jointly occupied by another for the purpose of the sale of drugs.
Finding: Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's offending was part of an ongoing course of conduct of drug dealing by her.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s4, s 32(5), referred to.
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; R v Kreutzer (2013) 118 SASR 211, considered.

R v EVANGELOU
[2017] SADC 76
Introduction

On 10 March 2017 Ms Evangelou pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (‘the Act’).
The offending occurred on 13 July 2016 at Kilburn.
On that day police attended at Ms Evangelou’s home at Kilburn (‘the property’). During a search of the property police found numerous plastic resealable bags and tins containing substances, being substances containing methylamphetamine (counts 1 and 2) and a combined total of 0.33 g of mixed substances containing heroin (count 3). Four mobile phones, a tick list and a set of digital scales were also seized from the property.
Count 1 relates specifically to four quantities of methylamphetamine seized from a lounge room coffee table, with a combined weight of 2.31 g (mixed) of the drug.
Count 2 relates specifically to five quantities of methylamphetamine seized from a separate rear table in the lounge room, with a combined weight of 0.46 g (mixed) of the drug.
Count 3 relates to heroin seized from the coffee table, with a combined weight of 0.33 g (mixed) of the drug.
At the time of the search Ms Evangelou’s co-accused, Peter Wayne Chantrill was at the property. Mr Chantrill was also charged with the same three counts and has pleaded not guilty to each count.
Ms Evangelou denies that the drugs found by police at the property were hers and maintains that her role in the offending was simply to provide or allow the use of the property for the purpose of the sale of the drugs by Mr Chantrill.
The prosecution allege that the offending by Ms Evangelou occurred as part of an ongoing course of conduct by her which included five counts of drug trafficking for offences committed on 15 July 2014, 26 April 2015, 2 June 2015 and 25 September 2015. Ms Evangelou was sentenced for that earlier offending by Judge Soulio in the District Court on 10 August 2016. The prosecution allege that while on home detention bail for those offences, Ms Evangelou continued to actively engage in the business of drug…

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 Evangelou

Details

AGLC: R v Evangelou [2017] SADC 76
Case: [2017] SADC 76
Decision Date: 12 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Evangelou, the High Court of Australia was presented with an appeal concerning a conviction for drug trafficking. The appellant, Evangelou, was found guilty of importing a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the definition of 'import' as it pertains to drug trafficking. The court was also required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court began by examining the statutory definition of 'import' in the context of drug trafficking and whether it required a physical crossing of the Australian border. The majority of the court held that the term 'import' should be interpreted broadly and does not necessarily require the physical movement of drugs across a border to constitute an offence. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the appellant was involved in the importation of a commercial quantity of heroin into Australia. The court emphasised that the evidence showed the appellant's active participation in the drug importation scheme, which included planning, organising, and facilitating the supply chain.

In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction for drug trafficking, finding that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appeal was dismissed. The court's interpretation of 'import' and its application in the context of drug trafficking cases sets an important precedent for future cases involving similar offences.

Orders