R v George Dib

R v GEORGE DIB [2013] ACTSC 70 (19 April 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Drug Offences – two charges of trafficking in a controlled drug – judge-alone trial – whether accused transported or possessed drugs with intention of selling – whether drugs were in accused’s possession – reasonable doubt whether bag transported by accused was bag subsequently found to contain drugs – accused’s DNA on outside of bag containing drugs – possibility that accused’s DNA found on one item inside bag deposited by secondary transfer during police search of bag – reasonable doubt whether accused had possession of bag containing drugs – accused not guilty of either offence.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 59 and 165, Dictionary Part 1

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 600, 602, 603(7) and 604(1)
Criminal Code Regulations 2005 (ACT), regs 5(1)(a) and 8(1), Sch 1
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Meyboom [2011] ACTSC 13

No. SCC 218 of 2009

Judge:             Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              19 April 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 218 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R  

v

GEORGE DIB  

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  19 April 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. On Count 1, that on 21 November 2008 George Dib trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely cocaine – a verdict of not guilty be entered.

1. On Count 2, that on 21 November 2008 George Dib trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely N, alpha-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) phenylethylamine (MDMA)  – a verdict of not guilty be entered.

Introduction

1. George Dib has been charged with:

(a)one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely cocaine, alleged to have been committed on 21 November 2008; and

(b)one count of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely N, alpha-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) phenylethylamine (MDMA), alleged to have been committed on the same day.

1. The accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Judge-alone trials

Election

1. The accused elected to be tried by a judge alone.

1. Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) specifies the procedures to be followed for a trial by judge alone. In summary:

(a)the judge can make any findings of guilt that could have been made by a jury, and those findings have the same effect as jury verdicts;

(c)the judge must provide a judgment setting out the principles of law he or she applied and the findings of fact he or she relied on (this requirement has been interpreted as requiring the judge to set out also the reasoning process linking the law and the facts, and a justification for the verdict, Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250); and

(d)the judge must take into account any warnings or directions that would, under a Territory law (which for this purpose includes the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), applicable at the…