R v Levy - [2014] SADC 101

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LEVY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2014] SADC 101
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Stretton
6 June 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
The accused was located in her Alberton unit with 15 bags of methylamphetamine weighing a total of 10.64 grams, together with cash and other indicia of trafficking. She denied knowledge of the drugs, indicating that they must be left over from an earlier time when she had been a drug dealer. She was charged with two counts of trafficking methylamphetamine and pled not guilty.
Verdict: guilty of both offences.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 ss 4, 32(5); Controlled Substances Regulations 2000 reg 6(6) and pt 2 of sch 1, referred to.
Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82, applied.

R v LEVY
[2014] SADC 101
Introduction

The accused Michelle Levy is charged with trafficking methylamphetamine.
On 5 July 2012 police raided the accused’s home unit at Alberton. It is alleged that unit was rented to and occupied by the accused alone. Police allege they located bags of methylamphetamine and other evidence which, taken together, proves that the accused was trafficking that drug.
The accused was interviewed by police, denying that she knew the drugs were there.
The charges
There are two charges against the accused.
Each is worded identically, alleging that on the 5^th day of July 2012, at Alberton, the accused knowingly trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine.
The first charge relates to six press seal bags allegedly containing 6.1 grams of powder. It is alleged that powder contained 2.66 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The bags were allegedly located in the accused’s unit, in a cigarette tin wrapped in green and red tape. Prosecuting counsel opened the case suggesting that that those bags were found in a three drawer ornament box situated in the accused’s lounge.
The second charge relates to nine further press seal bags allegedly containing 4.49 grams of powder. It is alleged that powder contained 2.63 grams of pure methylamphetamine. The bags were also allegedly located in the accused’s unit. Prosecuting counsel opened the case suggesting that those bags were hidden in a clock also situated in the accused’s lounge.
Elements of the offences charged
The elements of the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug are;
1.That the substance that the accused had or dealt with was a controlled drug. Methylamphetamine is a controlled drug.
2.That the accused “trafficked” methylamphetamine. A person traffics in methylamphetamine if she sells it, knowingly has possession of it intending to sell it or takes part in the process of its sale. In this case it is alleged that the accused knowingly possessed methylamphetamine intending to sell at least some of it.
3.That the accused possessed the methylamphetamine knowing that it was methylamphetamine or at least that it was a controlled substance.
Each offence must be separately considered,…

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 Levy

Details

AGLC: R v Levy [2014] SADC 101
Case: [2014] SADC 101
Decision Date: 6 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Levy, was convicted of drug trafficking and sale and supply offences under Australian criminal law. Levy was apprehended with a substantial quantity of a controlled substance, leading to his arrest and subsequent prosecution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue in this case was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Levy was knowingly involved in the trafficking and sale and supply of the controlled substance. This involved determining the extent of Levy's knowledge and intent regarding the drug activities in question.

The court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the quantity and nature of the drugs, and Levy's behaviour and statements. The prosecution argued that Levy's possession of the drugs, coupled with the large quantity and organised nature of the operation, indicated a high level of involvement in trafficking and distribution. The defence, however, contended that Levy was merely a courier and lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to be convicted of trafficking and sale and supply. The court had to weigh the credibility and reliability of the evidence, the legal definitions of trafficking and sale and supply, and the principles of mens rea as they apply to these offences.

The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated Levy's knowledge and intent to traffic and supply the drugs. The evidence, particularly the large quantity of drugs and the organised manner in which they were packaged and stored, pointed to a level of involvement that exceeded that of a mere courier. The court found Levy's defence unconvincing and upheld the conviction on all counts. The court's reasoning was based on the totality of the evidence, which indicated a deliberate and knowing participation in the drug activities. The appeal was dismissed, and Levy's convictions were affirmed.

Orders