Legal Research
Cases
R v Mason

R v Mason

Case [2006] VSCA 55 17 March 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 264 of 2005
No. 269 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
GRAEME FRANCIS MASON

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., BUCHANAN, J.A. and REDLICH, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 February 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 March 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 55

---

Criminal law – Cultivation and trafficking in cannabis charged in the alternative – No direct evidence of purpose for possession of cannabis plants – Conviction on count of trafficking set aside – Applicant resentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms G. Cannon	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr M.J. Croucher	George Henderson

MAXWELL, P.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Buchanan, JA. I agree with the course which his Honour proposes and I do so for the reasons which he gives.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

On 2 June 2001 members of the police force found 302 cannabis plants growing in a house at Donvale. The crop was growing hydroponically, using electricity diverted from the mains by a meter bypass. Three of the bedrooms and the garage were lined with plastic and fitted with large lights. The house was owned by the applicant’s son. In addition to the plants the police also found 12 kilograms of cannabis and more than 420 grams of cannabis seed. The value of the cannabis sold in pound lots was between $518,000 and $666,9000; if sold in ounce lots its value was between $830,000 to $948,000; if sold in gram lots its value was $1.3 million. On 13 March 2002 members of the police force searched a dwelling house at Warrandyte owned by the applicant and discovered 83 cannabis plants, again being grown hydroponically with electricity taken from the mains by a meter bypass.

In 1991 the applicant was sentenced in the Northern Territory to a term of four years’ imprisonment upon being convicted of producing cannabis. While in prison the applicant met Brett Schneider, who was also serving a sentence for a like offence. After they were released from prison the applicant persuaded Schneider to come to Melbourne and help to grow the cannabis crop at Donvale. Schneider stated that he was to live in the premises and cultivate the crop. The applicant provided Schneider with the cannabis plants and assisted him in their cultivation. The applicant paid all the expenses. The property at Warrandyte was occupied by a woman whom the applicant engaged to watch over the crop.

The sentencing judge described the applicant’s role in the cultivation as that of the entrepreneur who organised the premises, recruited labour, paid for the growing and development costs and supervised the overall operation.

The applicant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded not guilty to a presentment containing one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of cannabis between 1 November 2000 and 17 May 2002, one count of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis between…

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 [2006] VSCA 55
Case: [2006] VSCA 55
Decision Date: 17 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mason, the appellant was charged with cultivating and trafficking in cannabis. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant's defence contested the conviction on the count of trafficking in cannabis, arguing that there was no direct evidence establishing the purpose of his possession of the cannabis plants. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conviction for trafficking in cannabis could stand without clear evidence of the appellant's purpose for possessing the plants. The court was also required to determine whether the conviction for cultivation could be sustained independently of the trafficking charge.

The court found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the inference that the cultivation of the cannabis plants was for the purpose of trafficking. However, the absence of direct evidence linking the appellant's possession of the plants to an intent to traffic undermined the conviction for trafficking. The court held that without evidence of the appellant's purpose, the conviction for trafficking could not be upheld. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction on the trafficking charge but upheld the conviction for cultivation. The court also resentenced the appellant, reflecting the reduced scope of his criminal liability. The High Court's decision thus clarified the evidentiary requirements for convictions related to cannabis cultivation and trafficking, emphasising the need for clear evidence of intent.

Orders