Legal Research
Cases
R v Hill and May

R v Hill and May

Case [2018] SADC 67 15 June 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HILL AND MAY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 67
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
15 June 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
The accused May is charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug and three counts of trafficking in a controlled drug.
Discussion and application of the requirements to prove knowing possession or joint possession of controlled drugs in charges of trafficking in those drugs and of the proper construction of s 33P of the Controlled Substances Act.
Held:
1. As there is no proof May knew of, was reckless as to, or was in possession of controlled drugs, she is found not guilty of counts 35, 38 and 39.
2. As she had joint possession of the methylamphetamine with a co-accused for the purpose of sale, she is found guilty of count 37.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 4, s 4(5), s 4(7), s 32(1), s 32(2), s 32(3), s 32(5), s 33L, s 33P; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 32(5), s 270A, s 278(1); District Court Criminal Rules 214 (SA) r 42(1), r 42(4), r 42(5); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1)(b), s 7(3); Juries Rules 1996 (SA) r 41; R v Gavare (2011) 274 LSJS 553; R v Chapman (2001) 214 LSJS 319; R v Reeves (1992) 29 NSWLR 109; Pryor v The Queen (1969) 43 ALJR 388; Azzopardi & Davis v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50; R v Brown (1913) 17 CLR 570; R v Robinson & Tiplady (1985) 123 LSJS 37; R v Copeland (1997) 194 LSJS 1; R v Parisi (2014) 119 SASR 277; R v Pringle [2017] SASCFC 9; R v Tassone [2016] SASCFC 146; R v Nguyen (2005) 12 VR 299; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA) Schedule 1; Williams v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 591; He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v Clare [1994] 2 Qd R 619; Sheppard v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Merritt [1999] NSWCCA 29; R v Poulter (1978) 19 SASR 370; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 33R(2), s 34P(2), s 34Q; Narcotic and Psychotropic Drugs Act 1934 (SA) s 5(1)(a); R v Conley (1982) 30 SASR 226; Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 2 AC 256; Thomas v The King (1937) 59 CLR 279; Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293; Moors v Burke (1919) 26 CLR 265; Bahri Kural v The Queen (1978) 162 CLR 502; Saad v The Queen (1987) 61 ALJR 243; R v Alwazan [2016] SASCFC 155; R v Tran [2011] SASCFC 85; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR…

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 Hill and May

Details

AGLC: R v Hill and May [2018] SADC 67
Case: [2018] SADC 67
Decision Date: 15 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hill and May involved two individuals, Hill and May, who were charged with drug offences related to the trafficking and sale of drugs. The dispute centred on whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the defendants' involvement in the drug dealing activities. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were primarily focused on the interpretation and application of the drug trafficking laws. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had provided enough evidence to prove that Hill and May were involved in the sale and distribution of drugs, specifically trafficking. Additionally, the court had to assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and any other material that was admitted as evidence.

The court, in its decision, examined the evidence provided by the prosecution and found that it was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hill and May were involved in the drug trafficking activities. The court found that there were inconsistencies in the witness testimonies and that the evidence presented was not strong enough to establish the defendants' guilt. As a result, the court dismissed the charges against Hill and May.

The court's decision resulted in the acquittal of both defendants. The charges of drug trafficking and sale were dismissed, and the defendants were released from custody. This outcome highlights the importance of the prosecution's duty to provide strong and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders