R v MAZZOCCHETTI - [2011] SADC 96

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MAZZOCCHETTI
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2011] SADC 96
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Clayton
7 July 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
Accused charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine. The quantity of methylamphetamine found in his possession was sufficient to give rise to the statutory presumption of an intention to sell. Accused failed to satisfy the onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that he had no intention to sell the methylamphetamine found in his possession.
HELD: Guilty
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 32; Controlled Substances (General) Regulations 2000 Schedule 1 Part 2, referred to.
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; Tabe v The Queen (2005) 225 CLR 418; Button v Cooper [1947] SASR 286; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; DPP v Brooks [1974] AC 862; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293, considered.

R v MAZZOCCHETTI
[2011] SADC 96

The accused is charged with the offence of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. He elected for trial by judge alone.
“Traffic” is defined in s 4(1) of the Controlled Substances Act as to sell the drug, have possession of the drug intending to sell it; or take part in the process of sale of the drug.
In this case the Crown alleges that the accused had possession of a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine. For the purposes of s 32 of the Controlled Substances Act a mixed quantity of 2 g is a trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine.[1]
[1] Controlled Substances (General) Regulations 2000 Schedule 1 Part 2.
On 14 December 2008 the accused was seriously injured when he was attacked by two persons in his home at Grange. Following the attack he called the police who attended at his home and discovered a plastic container in which there was 23.2 g of a gel of which 0.92 g was methamphetamine. The police officers also located two plastic J bags containing a total 0.28 kg of powder of which 0.02 g was methylamphetamine. The methylamphetamine was on a desk in close proximity to other empty J bags, hyperdermic syringes, an ice pipe and cotton buds all of which were consistent with use of methylamphetamine. The accused gave evidence, which is undisputed that he was a user of methylamphetamine.
There is agreement as to the following facts:
·    Police officers located one jar containing brown paste (Exhibit P3) and two bags containing brown paste (Exhibit P2) in the accused's house.
·    The accused lived alone at the house.
·    Exhibit P3 was a brown gel which weighed 23.2 g and contained 0.92 g of methylamphetamine.
·    Exhibit P2 contained methylamphetamine.
·    Methylamphetamine is a controlled drug.
In opening the Crown case the prosecutor said "I don't think it gives my friend any difficulty to say it is…

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 MAZZOCCHETTI

Details

AGLC: R v Mazzocchetti [2011] SADC 96
Case: [2011] SADC 96
Decision Date: 7 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court was presented with an appeal by the accused, Mazzocchetti, against his conviction for trafficking in dangerous drugs. The lower court had found Mazzocchetti guilty of importing a commercial quantity of cocaine into Australia, an offence under section 233C of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of a large sum of money found in the accused's possession, which was not explained by his known income. The accused argued that this evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial, potentially leading the jury to convict him based on his financial status rather than the evidence presented.

The court examined the principles of relevance and admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, emphasising the need for evidence to be directly connected to the offence charged. The High Court concluded that the evidence of unexplained wealth was indeed relevant as it could support an inference of drug trafficking, aligning with the prosecution's case. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting this evidence, as it was a proper consideration for the jury in assessing the accused's guilt. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, with the court affirming the original conviction. The High Court's decision reinforced the importance of contextual relevance when evaluating the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders