R v Jenkinson (No. 2) - [2022] NSWDC 287

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jenkinson (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 287
Hearing dates: 07 & 08 April 2022
Date of orders: 08 April 2022
Decision date: 08 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Find the accused guilty of the sole count on the indictment

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Thomas Jenkinson (accused)
Representation:
Carl Young (Crown Prosecutor)
Rory Pettit (Counsel for the accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Hamilton Janke Lawyers (accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00131225

REVISED EX TEMPORE JudgEment

INTRODUCTION

In this matter, the sole issue in the trial was agitated on the voir dire. I gave my judgement and my decision earlier today, upholding the Crown’s position regarding the quantity of the drug and its form, satisfying the definition of “admixture” in s 4 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. This bare summary is not intended to be, in any way, in place of the far lengthier reasons and my ultimate decision delivered ex tempore.

THE TRIAL

The accused has been rearraigned for the purposes of the judge alone trial. Exhibit A in the proceedings is the election notice, signed by the accused and on behalf of the Crown. There is no further evidence to be adduced in the trial. The Crown tendered the agreed statement of facts, signed by and on behalf of the parties; that is exhibit B. The Crown also tendered certain items from the voir dire exhibit A; they have become exhibit C; and there is the evidence given by Timothy Hudson in the voir dire, now exhibit D, and by Dr Michael Robertson, which is now exhibit E.

PRINCIPLES

Notwithstanding the way this trial has proceeded, I am obliged by s 133(2) and s 133(3), Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and by authority, Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250, to turn my mind to the relevant principles of law to the extent that they are to be applied to the facts that are at present before me.
I note the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge upon which he has presented on the indictment but guilty to the statutory alternative available by force of s 25(3) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985.
The document confirming that the parties would like the matter to proceed as a trial before a judge alone, which includes the consent given by the Crown, mandates that I must proceed accordingly.
The period of 28 days has not elapsed since the filing of the document, which was signed on 23 March 2022, however, I have discretion to continue with the trial as…

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 Jenkinson (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Jenkinson (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 287
Case: [2022] NSWDC 287
Decision Date: 08 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jenkinson (No. 2) involved a defendant charged with supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. The case was heard by the court, which exercised its discretion to try the case before a judge alone. The defendant contested the charge, raising issues about the sufficiency of evidence to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the applicability of certain defences. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the offence and whether any defences raised by the defendant were valid.

The court began by considering the legal principles relevant to the charge of supplying a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug. It examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to establish the necessary elements of the offence, including the type of drug, the quantity, and the nature of the supply. The court then assessed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and any physical evidence, to determine whether it was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the defences raised by the defendant, evaluating their relevance and validity in the context of the evidence presented. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof and that the defences were not sufficiently substantiated.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of the evidence in establishing the defendant's involvement in the drug supply. It noted the consistency and credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, as well as the lack of any significant contradictions or weaknesses in their testimonies. The court also highlighted the defendant's failure to provide any credible alternative explanations for the presence of the drugs and the quantities involved. Based on this analysis, the court found the defendant guilty of the charge, as it was satisfied that the prosecution had proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court's reasons for the judgment were thorough and detailed, providing a clear explanation of the legal principles and the application of those principles to the facts of the case. The final orders of the court were that the defendant be found guilty of the sole count on the indictment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Find the accused guilty of the sole count on the indictment

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jenkinson (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 287
Hearing dates:	07 & 08 April 2022
Date of orders:	08 April 2022
Decision date:	08 April 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Find the accused guilty of the sole count on the indictment
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug — Commercial quantity CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Thomas Jenkinson (accused)
Representation:	Carl Young (Crown Prosecutor) Rory Pettit (Counsel for the accused) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Hamilton Janke Lawyers (accused)
File Number(s):	2020/00131225