R v Faiello - [2018] SADC 82

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v FAIELLO
[2018] SADC 82
Reasons for Ruling of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
30 July 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - PROCEDURE
Disputed facts hearing. Defendant contends that his plea of guilty was entered on the basis that he was transporting the drugs that are the subject of the charge rather than selling the drugs himself. The prosecution does not accept that assertion.
Held: Defendant has not established on the balance of probabilities that he was merely transporting the methylamphetamine. The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he possessed the drugs with the intention of selling those himself.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s4;s32; Listening & Surveillance Devices Act 1972 (SA) ; Evidence Act 1929 s34P; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 Schedule 1, referred to.
R v Olbridge (1999) CLR 270; R v Kreutzer [2013] SASCFC 130; R v Tran [2017] SASCFC 99, considered.

R v FAIELLO
[2018] SADC 82
Introduction

The defendant Daniel Rocco Faiello was committed to the District Court on a charge of trafficking in a controlled drug, methylamphetamine, contrary to s.32 (3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (S.A.).
On his first arraignment in the District Court on 19 January 2018 Mr Faiello entered a plea of guilty to that charge. The matter was listed for submissions on 21 March 2018. On the day of submissions a report from a psychologist Ms Darmenia dated 24 February 2018 was provided to the Director for Public Prosecutions and to the Court. It was apparent from the history taken by Ms Darmenia that there was a dispute as to the factual basis for the plea. Ultimately it was necessary to proceed by way of a disputed facts hearing.
Mr Faiello contends that his plea of guilty was entered on the basis that he was transporting the drugs that are the subject of the charge rather than selling the drugs himself. The prosecution does not accept that assertion. The prosecution says that Mr Faiello was in possession of the drugs with the intention to sell them himself.
The Facts
At about 4.45 pm on 1 March 2016 the police stopped a black Mercedes Benz, SA Registration 12633 on Walkerville Terrace at Walkerville (“the Mercedes”). Mr Faiello was the driver of this vehicle. The vehicle was registered to Chrelik Pty Ltd, a business owned and operated by Christopher Khoury an associate of Mr Faiello. Police searched the vehicle. Hidden behind the air-conditioning panel in the front console police found a plastic resealable bag containing a white crystalline substance. The contents of that bag weighed a total of 22.4 grams and contained 17.9 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The bag was swabbed and tested for DNA. There is extremely strong support (greater than one hundred billion) for the hypothesis that Mr Faiello is a contributor to the mixed DNA profile obtained.
The police also located a shoulder bag or satchel which contained a set…

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 Faiello

Details

AGLC: R v Faiello [2018] SADC 82
Case: [2018] SADC 82
Decision Date: 30 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Faiello was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, Faiello, faced charges relating to drug trafficking. The case centred around the discovery and seizure of a quantity of illicit substances and the subsequent charges brought against Faiello. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the evidence obtained and the legality of the actions taken by law enforcement during the investigation and arrest.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of evidence obtained during the search and seizure process. Faiello's legal team argued that the search was conducted without a proper warrant and that the evidence obtained should be excluded as a result. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the search was justified under specific exceptions to the warrant requirement. The court had to consider the legality of the search and whether it complied with the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

In its decision, the court examined the circumstances under which the search was conducted and the evidence provided by both parties. The court found that the search was conducted without a warrant but was justified under the provisions of the Act that allow for searches in exigent circumstances. The evidence obtained was deemed admissible as it was considered to be the result of a lawful search. The court concluded that the prosecution had established the necessary elements to prove the drug trafficking charges against Faiello. The judge found Faiello guilty on all counts.

The court ordered Faiello to be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The matter was adjourned to a later date to allow for the preparation of a presentencing report. The court's decision was based on the legal principles of evidence admissibility and the exceptions to the warrant requirement for searches, ultimately upholding the prosecution's case against Faiello.

Orders