R v McDonnell-Smith - [2006] SADC 79

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCDONNELL-SMITH & ORS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2006] SADC 79
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Herriman
13 July 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES
Taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine - whether circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish joint enterprise of accused in taking steps in the process of manufacture.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s.32(1)(b), s32(4); Juries Act 1927 s.7(1)(a), referred to.
Re Avory; Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2003) (2003) 87 SASR 392; R v Palaga (2001) 80 SASR 19; R v Long (2002) 137 A Crim R 263, applied.
DPP Reference (No 2 of 1995) (SA) (1995) 65 SASR 508; Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 1 of 1996) (1997) 68 SASR 117; R v Thomas (1993) 67 A Crim R 308; R v BD (2001) 122 A Crim R 28; R v Marchione (2002) 128 A Crim R 574; R v Spicer [2003] NSWCCA 108, distinguished.

R v MCDONNELL-SMITH & ORS
[2006] SADC 79
Introduction

Robyn McDonnell‑Smith, Norman Arthur Randylle and Paul Robert Cosford are jointly charged on information with taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine contrary to s.32(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
Particulars of the offending alleged are that between 1 and 8 January 2005, at Windsor Gardens and other places, they knowingly took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, a drug of dependence.
On that same information, the accused Cosford has pleaded guilty to three firearms offences, namely, possessing a firearm without a licence, possessing an unregistered firearm and possessing a silencer. Each of those counts relates to the same weapon and I will later discuss what account should be taken of those pleas.
The Election for Trial by Judge Alone
The trial of the accused was originally listed to take place before a jury but, pursuant to s.7(1)(a) of the Juries Act 1927, each of them sought to elect for trial by judge alone. Those elections were made well outside the time provided for in the Rules under that Act. In the event, having been informed by the prosecution that it did not oppose my dispensing with the need for strict compliance with that time limit and, further, that the trial was to proceed in a particular manner which I will shortly describe, I found myself satisfied there were special reasons for dispensing with the requirements of Rule 16 of the Juries Rules, and I did so. The trial then proceeded without a jury and before me.
Rule 9 Application
Before the trial commenced, I dealt with a Rule 9 application brought by the accused Cosford seeking orders for the exclusion from trial of:
(1)the evidence of a proposed witness, Tammy Christmas; and
(2)the evidence of prior purchases of the substance iodine.
In order to properly determine the first part of that application, it became necessary for me to read the police deposition of the witness Christmas and…

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 McDonnell-Smith

Details

AGLC: R v McDonnell-Smith [2006] SADC 79
Case: [2006] SADC 79
Decision Date: 13 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of the Queen versus McDonnell-Smith involved a dispute concerning drug-related offences. The respondent, McDonnell-Smith, was charged with possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply, contrary to section 31(1)(b) of the Drug Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The charges arose from the discovery of a significant quantity of cocaine and cannabis, along with paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking, in the respondent's possession. The respondent pleaded not guilty and contested the charges on several grounds, including the legality of the search and the identification of the drugs.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the search and seizure of the drugs were lawful and, if so, whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent argued that the police lacked a warrant for the search and that the drugs should be excluded as they were obtained in violation of their legal rights. Additionally, the respondent challenged the accuracy of the drug identification process and the chain of custody for the evidence. The prosecution maintained that the search was justified under the circumstances and that the evidence was robust and admissible.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to conduct a warrantless search based on the presence of suspicious circumstances. The respondent's presence in a known drug hotspot, along with the discovery of drug paraphernalia in plain view, provided sufficient justification for the search. The court also accepted that the chain of custody for the drugs was intact and that the identification process was conducted by qualified experts. Consequently, the court found the evidence admissible and sufficient to prove the charges against the respondent. The respondent's arguments regarding the legality of the search and the identification of the drugs were rejected, leading to a guilty verdict on both counts.

Orders