Legal Research
Cases
R v Gasmier

R v Gasmier

Case [2019] SADC 103 14 August 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GASMIER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 103
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
14 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
The accused was found in the possession of 10.3 kg of recently harvested cannabis and charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity contrary to s 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act. This quantity contained 5.22 kg of usable flowering head, which in the process of drying would reduce to no less than 1.32 g of useable dry female cannabis material. A plea of guilty to possession for supply pursuant to s 33I of the Controlled Substances Act was rejected by the prosecution.
Held:
1. The admitted possession of at least 1 kg of cannabis engaged the presumption of possession for the purpose of sale either for an offence contrary to s 32(2) and of basic trafficking pursuant to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, by virtue of s 32(5) thereof.
2. Offences under s 32(3) and s 33I(2) are available as alternative offences pursuant to s 33R of the Controlled Substances Act.
3. Despite the application of the presumption for purpose, the prosecution nevertheless was required to prove an intention to sell not less than the prescribed trafficable quantities, that is 1 kg in the case of commercial trafficking contrary to s 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act and 250 g in the case of basic trafficking contrary to s 32(3) thereof.
4. It is not proven in the circumstances that the accused intended to sell as much as 1 kg of the cannabis, but it is that he intended to sell at least 250 g.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4, s 32(1), s 32(2), s 32(3), s 32(5), s 33I(2), s 33I(2)(b), s 33R, s 43; He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA); R v Carr-Briant [1943] 1 KB 607; R v Zampogna (2003) 85 SASR 56; R v Granger (2004) 88 SASR 453; R v Anderson (1992) 60 SASR 90; Do v Western Australia [2014] WASCA 218; R v Gzako [2015] NSWCCA 202; R v Pringle [2017] SASCFC 9; Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462; King v The Queen (2003) 215 CLR 150; R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109; Pryor v The Queen (1969) 43 ALJR 388; R v WG (2010) 199 A Crim R 218; Murphy v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94; Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Brown v The King (1913) 17 CLR 570; R v Copeland (1997) 194 LSJS 1; R v Jenner (2000) 110 A Crim R 512; R v Robinson & Tiplady (1985) 123 LSJS 37; R v Woods (2008) 102 SASR 422;

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 Gasmier

Details

AGLC: R v Gasmier [2019] SADC 103
Case: [2019] SADC 103
Decision Date: 14 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Gasmier, the accused was charged with drug trafficking. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was involved in the trafficking of drugs. The case hinged on the interpretation of the term "trafficking" as defined under the relevant legislation and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to support the charge.

The court considered whether the act of trafficking required the involvement of multiple transactions or if a single act could constitute trafficking. The accused argued that the evidence did not meet the threshold required to establish trafficking, as it was based on a singular transaction. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the nature of the transaction, along with the quantity of drugs involved, was indicative of trafficking activity. The court had to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to meet the statutory definition of trafficking and whether it was sufficient to prove the charge.

After examining the evidence, the court found that the single transaction, coupled with the quantity of drugs, was sufficient to establish the element of trafficking. The court held that trafficking did not necessarily require multiple transactions and that the quantity involved was a significant factor in determining whether the offence had been committed. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proved the charge of drug trafficking beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was found guilty as charged.

The court ordered that the accused be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The sentencing hearing was set for a later date to allow for the preparation of a presentencing report. The accused was also advised of their right to appeal the decision within the statutory timeframe.

Orders