(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice Mullighan)
8 June 2004
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - POSSESSION - FOR SALE OR SUPPLY
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - THE NON-JUDICIAL ORGANS OF GOVERNMENT - THE LEGISLATURE - LEGISLATION AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS - LEGISLATIVE POWERS - POWER TO ACT CONTRARY TO SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - EFFECT OF OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OTHER OFFENCES
Appeal against conviction and sentence - appellant was charged with possession of cannabis for sale under s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1985 (SA) - s 32(3) contained a statutory presumption that cannabis was in possession for the purpose of sale - whether the presumption is invalid in that it interferes with the exercise of judicial power - whether the presumption is invalid in that its operation results in an unfair trial - whether the presumption is invalid as it is given an unreasonable or irrational operation - whether the trial Judge erred in rejecting the accused's evidence of cannabis use - whether the trial Judge erred in sentencing the appellant on the basis that all cannabis was for sale - whether the trial Judge erred in sentencing the appellant by failing to consider exercising power conferred by s 58(3) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act - whether the trial Judge erred in sentencing the appellant by failing to exercise the power conferred by s 58(4)(a) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act - appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
[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 Granger
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Granger [2004] SASC 156
Case
[2004] SASC 156
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the appellant, Granger, contested his conviction and sentence for possession of cannabis with intent to sell or supply, as per section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1985 (SA). The key issues in the case were the validity of the statutory presumption in s 32(3) that possession of cannabis implies intent to sell or supply, and whether the trial judge erred in various aspects of his decision-making process. The court was required to determine if the presumption violated judicial power or resulted in an unfair trial, and if the trial judge's handling of evidence and sentencing adhered to legal standards.
The court found that the statutory presumption in s 32(3) did not infringe upon judicial power or cause an unfair trial. It was deemed rational and not unreasonable, as it allowed for rebuttable evidence and did not prevent the defence from presenting a case. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not err in rejecting the appellant's evidence of personal cannabis use or in concluding that all cannabis found was for sale. The trial judge's sentencing decisions were also affirmed, as he correctly applied the relevant sentencing provisions and had discretion in deciding not to reduce the sentence.
Consequently, the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by the court. The trial judge's decisions regarding the presumption, evidence, and sentencing were upheld, and no grounds for a new trial or sentence reduction were found. The court's ruling underscored the validity of the statutory presumption and the trial judge's application of the law in this case.