R v Fowler - [2005] SADC 72

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v FOWLER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Boylan
1 July 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - POSSESSION - FOR SALE OR SUPPLY
Accused charged with one count of Possessing Methylamphetamine for Sale, one count of Possessing Cannabis, and one count of Producing Cannabis.
Trial by Judge alone. Elements of offence - findings by trial Judge.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 Section 31, Section 32(1)(a), Section 32(1)(e), referred to.

R v FOWLER
[2005] SADC 72

Donna Fowler is charged with one count of possessing methylamphetamine for sale, one count of possessing cannabis and one count of producing cannabis. The charges and particulars (as amended) read as follows:-
“First Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing Methylamphetamine for Sale. (Section 32(1) (e) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Donna Fowler on the 16^th day of November 2003 at Elizabeth North, knowingly had methylamphetamine, a drug of dependence, in her possession for the purpose of selling it to another person.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Possessing Cannabis (Section 31 of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984)
Particulars of Offence
Donna Fowler on the 16^th day of November 2003 at Elizabeth North, knowingly had cannabis, a prohibited substance, in her possession.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Producing Cannabis. (Section 32(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984)
Particulars of Offence
Donna Fowler between the 1^st day of October 2003 and the 17^th day of November 2003 at Elizabeth North, knowingly produced cannabis, a prohibited substance.
It is further alleged that the said offence involved 3 growing cannabis plants.”
Immediately before the trial was due to begin, Mr Stokes, counsel for the accused, applied for her to be tried by Judge alone. The Crown did not oppose that application. Accordingly, so far as was necessary, I dispensed with compliance with the Rules and the trial proceeded before me.
Overview
The alleged offences arose out of attendances by police officers on the 16^th day of November 2003 at premises at Elizabeth North which were owned by Ms Fowler. There were two sets of premises. The first of them was at 68 Dauntsey Road, Elizabeth North. Ms Fowler was the registered proprietor of those premises and was living there. The other premises were at 20 Knighton Road, Elizabeth North. Ms Fowler was also the registered proprietor of those premises. The Knighton Road premises are only around the corner from the Dauntsey Road premises.
On the afternoon of the 16^th of November 2003, a number of police officers attended first at the house at 68 Dauntsey Road. They searched the house. In the top drawer of a bedside table next to Ms Fowler’s bed, police officers found a package containing nine small plastic bags each of which contained a white powder which, in turn, contained methylamphetamine. The methylamphetamine contained in those nine bags is the subject of the charge in count 1.
In a shed…

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 Fowler

Details

AGLC: R v Fowler [2005] SADC 72
Case: [2005] SADC 72
Decision Date: 1 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fowler, the defendant was charged with drug possession with intent to supply, following an investigation by law enforcement officers. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was alleged to have been found in possession of a quantity of a controlled substance, with evidence suggesting an intent to supply the drug to others.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had possession of the drug with the intent to supply it to others. This involved examining the evidence presented, including the circumstances of the defendant's arrest, the nature of the substance found, and any other relevant factors that might indicate an intent to supply. The court also needed to consider whether the defence had successfully rebutted any presumptions or inferences that might have arisen from the evidence.

The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendant, with evidence showing that the defendant had been in possession of a quantity of the drug and that there were circumstances indicating an intent to supply. The defence attempted to challenge the evidence and the inferences drawn from it, but the court was not persuaded that the defence had successfully rebutted the prosecution's case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found the defendant guilty of the offence of possession with intent to supply a controlled substance. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's criminal history. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine and subject to other conditions as part of the sentence.

Orders