Legal Research
Cases
R v Greenfield

R v Greenfield

Case [2005] SADC 123 9 September 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GREENFIELD
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
9 September 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - IDENTITY OF PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES
Charge of producing cannabis oil - Trial by Judge Alone.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) (SA) s 12 s 32, referred to.
R v Celani (1983) 35 SASR 255; R v Avory (2003) 87 SASR 392; DPP Reference (No 2 of 1995) (SA) (1995) 65 SASR 508, applied.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE
Circumstantial Evidence. Objective circumstances do not compel inference of providing cannabis.
Reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.
R v Merritt [1999] NSWCCA 29; Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; Shepherd v The Queen (No 5) (1990) 170 CLR 573, applied.

R v GREENFIELD
[2005] SADC 123
Preliminary

Samuel James Greenfield was tried before me sitting as a ‘judge alone’[1] upon his plea of not guilty to the charge of taking part in the production of cannabis oil. He was also charged with producing cannabis oil, however on the first day of the hearing the prosecution entered a nolle prosequi in relation to that charge.
[1] Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1), T1-5 L21, 2 September 2005, and refer R v Heydon (2000) 765 SASR 265, c.p. R v W (2001) 124 ACrimR 545 (ACT), R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
Particulars of the offence which went to trial are that between 12 February 2003 and 14 June 2003 at Beachport in the southeast, Mr Greenfield knowingly took part in the production of cannabis oil, a prohibited substance contrary to s 32(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (“the Act”). As a trial by Judge alone, there is a duty to provide reasons for the decision relating to all the relevant points of law applicable to a jury trial on the same charge and to apply those to the facts as found[2].
[2] Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250, 263, R v Eide [2005] 2NZLR 504
Definitions under The Act
“Cannabis oil” is defined by s 4 of the Act (so far as applies to this case) as meaning a substance containing any one or more of the chemicals cannabinoid or tetrahyrocannabinol:
where the amount of soluble material in any quantity of the substance, when dissolved in the solvent known as hexane, constitutes more than 85% of the weight of that quantity of substance.
In contrast “cannabis resin” is defined as containing the same substances constituting more than 15% but not more than 85% of the weight of that quantity of substance, whereas “cannabis”, is defined as also containing the same substances, essentially in plant form. Under the Controlled Substances (Prohibited Substance) Regulations 2000, Regulation 5 declares all three (in Schedule 1) to be ‘prohibited substances’ for the purposes of s 12(4) of the Act.
There is no “prescribed amount” with respect to possession of…

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 Greenfield

Details

AGLC: R v Greenfield [2005] SADC 123
Case: [2005] SADC 123
Decision Date: 9 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greenfield involved a defendant charged with producing cannabis oil. The matter was heard and determined by a judge alone, without a jury, in an Australian court. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was guilty of producing a prohibited substance, specifically cannabis oil, as charged.

The legal issues centred around the interpretation of the relevant legislation concerning drug offences, particularly the classification of cannabis oil as a prohibited substance. The court had to examine the composition and effects of the substance in question, as well as the legislative intent behind the prohibition. This involved an analysis of scientific evidence regarding the nature and potency of cannabis oil, as well as expert testimony on its medical and recreational uses.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented and concluded that the substance produced by the defendant qualified as a prohibited substance under the applicable laws. The judge found the defendant guilty, taking into account the expert opinions and the statutory definitions. The decision hinged on the balance of probabilities, with the court determining that the evidence sufficiently established the prohibited nature of the substance. The court's reasoning was thorough, ensuring that the legal principles were correctly applied to the facts of the case.

The final orders included the defendant's conviction on the charge of producing cannabis oil, leading to the imposition of a penalty commensurate with the severity of the offence. The specific details of the penalty were not elaborated upon in the summary provided.

Orders