R v Gwyn Alun Rees

[2006] ACTSC 27

R v GWYN ALUN REES [2006] ACTSC 27 (10 APRIL 2006)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – drug offences – possession of prohibited substances for sale or supply – exclusive possession – drugs found in bedroom occupied by accused – circumstantial evidence of exclusive possession and knowledge – no reasonable possibility of access by other persons – finding of guilt in respect of first count.

Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), ss 164(2), 164(8), 169(1), 171(1), Div 11.3

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C

R v Rees [2005] ACTSC (23 September 2005)
R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53

Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50

The Queen v Amanatidis (2001) 125 A Crim R 89

R v Filipetti (1984) 13 A Crim R 335

No. SCC 254 of  2004

Judge:             Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              10 April 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 254 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R

v

GWYN ALUN REES

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  10 April 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The accused is guilty in respect of the first count on the indictment. 

1. It is unnecessary to make a finding of the second count. 

1. The accused is acquitted in respect of the third count on the indictment.

1. On 1 August 2004, Gwyn Alun Rees (the accused) pleaded not guilty to charges that:

(1)        on 14 November 2003 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he possessed a traffickable quantity of a prohibited substance, namely 3,4 – methylenedioxy-N,alpha-dimethylphenylethylamine (MDMA) for the purpose of sale or supply;

(2)        on 14 November 2003 at Canberra aforesaid he possessed a prohibited substance, namely 3,4-methylenedioxy-N,alpha-dimethylphenylethylamine (MDMA);

(3)        on 14 November 2003 at Canberra aforesaid he possessed a drug of dependence, namely cocaine.

These are offences under ss 164(2), 171(1) and 169(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) respectively.

1. The accused elected for trial by judge alone.

1. A pre-trial hearing took place as to the admissibility of evidence obtained as a consequence of a police search of premises occupied by the accused and the admissibility of a conversation between police officers and the accused.  On 23 September 2005 I ruled that the evidence obtained as a consequence of the search was admissible but the evidence of the conversation was not (R v Rees [2005] ACTSC 91 (23 September 2005)). Also, the parties requested that a witness give evidence by way of a voir dire hearing as the witness had not been called at the committal.

Directions

1. On 21 March 2006, the trial proceeded before me. As a trial by judge alone, the procedures are those set out in s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). My findings are to have the same effect as a verdict of the jury. My judgment is to include the principles of law that I apply and the findings of facts upon which I rely.

1. I give myself the following general directions:

The accused is…