Legal Research
Cases
R v Mason

R v Mason

Case [2000] SASC 161 14 June 2000

Public Interest Immunity

Knowledge Requirement

Deeming Provision

Mens Rea & Intention

Presumptions in Criminal Law

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

R v MASON
[2000] SASC 161

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Mullighan and Bleby JJ

DOYLE CJ. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. There is nothing that I wish to add to the reasons given by Bleby J for so deciding.
MULLIGHAN J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Bleby J.
BLEBY J. The appellant was convicted, after being found guilty by a jury, of a charge of possessing amphetamine for sale contrary to s 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. He applied for leave to appeal against his conviction on a number of grounds. The judge who heard the application granted leave to appeal on one ground only.

A preliminary issue

Having been refused leave to appeal on most grounds, the appellant then requested that his application be considered by the Full Court pursuant to r 15 of the Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Rules 1996. As required by r 15(6) he submitted a summary of argument. Rule 15(7) provides that such an application should be considered by the Full Court privately. In this case the appellant also provided extensive written submissions that he was entitled to be heard in open court, attacking the validity of r 15 to the extent that it allowed the application to be dealt with in private. That Full Court (“the first Full Court”) adhered to the procedure identified in the Rules and held that the procedure of considering the matter in private was valid, consistent with the decision of the majority of the High Court in Coulter v R (1988) 164 CLR 350. It refused leave to appeal on the additional grounds.
At the end of his reasons for refusing leave Prior J, on behalf of the first Full Court, said:
“The applicant may wish to invite the Full Court to consider the validity of the r15 procedure when the grounds of appeal the subject of the grant of leave are listed for hearing by the Full Court. If he does, advance notice should be given to the court and the respondent of this.”
In the outline of argument submitted by the appellant to this Court, the appellant sought to argue the invalidity of r 15 on grounds which included an alleged incompatibility with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution. The grounds which did not directly raise incompatibility with Chapter III were said to do so indirectly through the application of the decision in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (1996) 189 CLR 51. The submissions challenged both the procedures as to the granting of leave and the restrictions, by the requirement of leave, upon the right of appeal itself.
Notwithstanding the invitation given by the first Full Court and the submissions contained in the outline of argument, the appellant had not given the notices required by s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). No such notices had been given in respect of the application to the first Full Court…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2000] SASC 161
Case: [2000] SASC 161
Decision Date: 14 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in the matter of R v Mason was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, who had been convicted of possessing amphetamine for sale, sought leave to appeal against his conviction on several grounds. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no valid basis for allowing the appeal. The primary issue was whether the trial judge should have directed a police officer to provide a description of an anonymous informant who had provided information leading to the search and seizure of the amphetamine. The Court held that the police officer was entitled to refuse to give the description, as the information was given under a condition of confidentiality, and the public interest in protecting the identity of informers outweighed any potential benefit to the appellant. Additionally, the Court addressed the interpretation of a deeming provision in the Controlled Substances Act, which presumed that possession of a certain quantity of a controlled substance was for the purpose of sale or supply. The Court found that the provision did not require proof that the accused knew the precise quantity of the substance, and upheld the trial judge's direction to the jury on this matter.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding the conviction and finding no error in the trial judge's rulings on the issues raised.

Orders