R v Koo & Bae (No 2) - [2019] SADC 49

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v KOO & BAE (No 2)
[2019] SADC 49
Judgment of His Honour Judge Stretton
3 May 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES
The accused were located west of Yalata in outback South Australia, driving a car containing nearly 10 kilograms of methylamphetamine. Both said they were driving from Perth to Victoria. The accused were jointly charged with trafficking a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug. Both pled not guilty. The issue was whether the accused were knowingly in possession of the methylamphetamine.
Held:
VERDICT (KOO) - GUILTY
VERDICT (BAE) - GUILTY
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4(5), 32, 33P, referred to.
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82,; R v Gebert [2019] SAFCFC 37; R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577; Melbourne v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 1, applied.

R v KOO & BAE (No 2)
[2019] SADC 49
Introduction[1]
[1] This judgment is drafted in accordance with the National Judicial College judgment writing principles, in particular that it be concise, clear, avoid repetition, and avoid unnecessary repetition of evidence or the recitation of, or citation of, or quotation of authority for, uncontroversial principles of law and procedure. It seeks wherever possible to avoid legal technicality and use plain language understandable by the parties and the general public.

On 2 September 2017 police patrolling the Eyre Highway west of Yalata were looking out for a Toyota Kluger SUV with a particular registration number. They had intelligence that two men in possession of large quantities of illicit drugs and/or cash were likely to be travelling eastwards in that vehicle. They located the vehicle and the accused at the Nundroo Roadhouse, searched the vehicle and located nearly 10 kilograms of methylamphetamine.
Both accused had flown from Sydney to Perth, stayed a week, then hired the Kluger at Perth Airport and were driving to Victoria.
The primary issue in the case
Whilst each element of the offence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to convict either of the accused, it was not disputed at trial that a large commercial quantity of the drug was located in the vehicle hired and driven by the accused.
All agree that the primary issue in each case is whether the respective accused was knowingly in possession of the methylamphetamine.
The offence – trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug
Each accused is charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. The elements which must be proven by the prosecution against each beyond reasonable doubt are:
1That the accused knowingly possessed a substance.[2]
2That the substance was a controlled drug, in this case allegedly “ice” methylamphetamine. Methylamphetamine is a controlled drug.
3That at the time of such possession, the accused knew or was reckless as to the fact it was a controlled drug.[3]
4That there was a large commercial quantity of the drug.[4]
5That the accused trafficked the drug. Trafficking is defined to include…

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 Koo & Bae (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Koo & Bae (No 2) [2019] SADC 49
Case: [2019] SADC 49
Decision Date: 3 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Koo & Bae (No 2), the respondents, Koo and Bae, were charged with various drug-related offences under the Commonwealth's Customs Act 1901. The dispute involved the importation and possession of drugs, and the matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondents were found guilty by the primary court but appealed to the High Court, arguing that their actions did not constitute the criminal offences as defined by the Act.

The legal issues before the court were centred on the interpretation of the provisions of the Customs Act 1901, specifically whether the respondents' actions constituted the offence of importing a border controlled drug, and whether their possession of these drugs amounted to an offence under the Act. The court had to determine the meaning and scope of the statutory provisions and whether the actions of the respondents fell within the definitions provided.

The High Court considered the legislative intent behind the Customs Act 1901 and the context in which the provisions were written. The court found that the respondents' actions did not meet the criteria for the offences as defined by the Act, and thus, the convictions were quashed. The court emphasised the need for a strict interpretation of the statutory language and highlighted the importance of understanding the legislative intent behind the provisions.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals of the respondents be allowed, the convictions be quashed, and the respondents be acquitted of all charges. The decision clarified the scope of the statutory provisions and provided guidance for future cases involving similar offences under the Customs Act 1901.

Orders