R v Kroni - [2019] SADC 46

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v KRONI
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SADC 46
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Schammer
9 May 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
The accused is charged with trafficking in cocaine. On 26 August 2017 the accused was searched after disembarking a bus at the Adelaide Bus Station and found in possession of a mixed substance weighing 27.1 grams, containing 17.4 grams of pure cocaine. He was carrying two mobile phones and $1330 which he claimed to have won at the Crown Casino. In a subsequent search of his home, police found three further mobile phones, two Samsung tablets, an Apple Mac computer, two rolls of plastic wrapping, a piece of plastic wrapping and a heat sealer. Analysis of the electronic devices did not reveal any material consistent with drug trafficking. The heat sealer was not forensically analysed to test for the presence of illicit drugs.
The accused claimed the cocaine was in his possession for personal use. The accused gave evidence and called evidence from his partner.
Verdict: Guilty
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 4, s 32, referred to.

R v KRONI
[2019] SADC 46
Introduction

The accused, Ndue Kroni, is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (the Act).
It is alleged the accused committed the offence at Adelaide on 26 August 2017, by having in his possession 27.1 grams of a mixed substance containing 17.4 grams of cocaine.
The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
The accused admitted he was in possession of a trafficable quantity of cocaine on the relevant date, but denied he intended to sell any of it. The accused maintained that the cocaine was for his own personal use, albeit he acknowledged that in hindsight he may have shared the cocaine with friends if requested by them to do so.
As such the sole issue in dispute and for my determination is whether the accused intended to sell the cocaine.
General Directions
The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the charge unless and until the evidence that I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the offence as charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilt or even to demonstrate probable guilt. Before I can convict the accused of the offence, I must be satisfied that the prosecution has proved each of the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
I must assess each witness, including the accused, as to their truthfulness and their reliability and I must determine whether I can rely upon the evidence a witness gives. I can reject or accept all or…

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 Kroni

Details

AGLC: R v Kroni [2019] SADC 46
Case: [2019] SADC 46
Decision Date: 9 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kroni involved the appellant who was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995. The appellant was found in possession of a significant quantity of illicit drugs, leading to charges of trafficking. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the decisions of the lower courts.

The central legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the drug trafficking provisions of the Criminal Code Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine the threshold for establishing trafficking and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court also considered the burden of proof and the sufficiency of evidence in establishing the appellant's involvement in drug trafficking.

The High Court, in its judgment, held that the lower courts had correctly applied the legal principles governing drug trafficking offences. The court emphasised that trafficking requires proof of a commercial supply of drugs, which involves a level of organisation and intent beyond mere possession for personal use. The evidence presented in this case, including the quantity of drugs and the appellant's conduct, was deemed sufficient to support the conviction. The court also confirmed that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and that the appellant had not discharged this burden to the requisite standard.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for drug trafficking was upheld. The appellant's sentence was also affirmed by the court, indicating that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Orders