R v Haseldon

[2012] NSWDC 15

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Haseldon [2012] NSWDC 15

Hearing dates:

8, 9, 14, 17 February 2012

Decision date:

24 February 2012

Before:

Murrell SC DCJ

Decision:

Count 2 ( Supply cannabis resin ): Guilty

Count 3 (Supply cannabis leaf): Guilty

Count 4 ( Supply methylamphetamine ) : Not guilty

Count 6 ( Supply cannabis resin ): Guilty

Catchwords:

Judge alone trial
Deemed supply
Actual supply
Possession

Legislation Cited:

Drug Misuse and trafficking Act 1985, s 29
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

NSW DPP
Mr Haseldon

Representation:

Mr C. McPherson (Crown)
Mr N. Harrison (Accused)
Ms A. Lee/Ms Sanderson (DPP)
Mr V. Boss (Accused)

File Number(s):

2011/102027

Judgment

The Trial

1. Jeffrey Haseldon (the accused) elected to be tried by a judge alone and the Director of Public Prosecutions consented. Pursuant to s 132(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, I was satisfied that, before making the election, the accused had sought and received advice from his legal representative (MFI 1).

1. The accused was indicted on six counts. He entered the following pleas:

Count	Date of Offence	Charge	Plea
1	1.1.11 - 24.3.11	Manufacture cannabis resin	Guilty
2	24.3.11	Supply cannabis resin (deemed supply 64.8g)	Not guilty
3	24.3.11	Supply cannabis leaf (deemed supply 1044g)	Not guilty
4	24.3.11	Supply methylamphetamine (deemed supply 12.9g)	Not guilty
5	24.3.11	Cultivate prohibited plant (5 cannabis plants)	Guilty
6	24.3.10 - 24.3.11	Supply cannabis resin (actual supply)	Not guilty

General Directions

1. The trials of four offences contrary to the Drug Misuse and T rafficking Act 1985 (the Act) to which the accused pleaded not guilty were heard together as a matter of convenience. I must consider each charge separately and return a separate verdict on each .

1. The accused is presumed to be not guilty of each of the four offences . The onus is on the Crown to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in relation to each offence . In order to prove an offence, the Crown must prove each legal element of that offence beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to the way in which the trial was run, in relation to counts (2) and (3), if the Crown satisfies the onus cast upon it then the onus shifts to the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that he possessed the relevant drug otherwise than for supply .

1. In making findings of fact, I must rely upon the evidence, ie the evidence given by the witnesses and that contained in the exhibits.

1. The accused gave sworn evidence. He was not obliged to give evidence and subject himself to cross-examination. However, as he did so, I assess his evidence in the same way that I assess the evidence of any witness, inter alia, by considering apparently significant inconsistencies and by applying common sense.

Undisputed Facts

1. On 24 March 2011, police executed a search warrant at premises owned and…