R v Middlin-Hannah - [2020] SADC 31

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MIDDLIN-HANNAH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2020] SADC 31
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Press
26 March 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - MENS REA - STATUTORY OFFENCES - EFFECT OF PARTICULAR WORDS - SELL
Accused charged with two counts of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug –No seizure of the MDMA the subject of the two counts – The prosecution rely on text message exchanges to prove the elements of the counts – Whether the accused offered or agreed to sell MDMA or took part in the process of sale of MDMA – Whether proof of actual possession of MDMA at the time of an offer or agreement to sell is required to satisfy the element
Verdict: Guilty - Counts 1 and 2.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(3); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(2)(a); s 34P(2)(b); s 34P(3); s 54 ; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 r 5, referred to.
R v Tennant [2010] SASCFC 2; Abrahamson v The Queen (1994) 63 SASR 139; Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590; R v C,CA [2013] SASCFC 137; BNM v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 10; R v Pfennig (1995) 182 CLR 461; R v Peirce (1994) 90 A Crim R 134; Dendic & Mazzeo v R (1987) 34 A Crim R 40; R v Swan [2003] NSWCCA 318; Aoun v R [2011] NSWCCA 284; R v Randylle (2006) 95 SASR 574; R v Falzon (2018) 264 CLR 361; Questions of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No1 of 1996) (1997) 68 SASR; R v Addison (1993) 70 A Crim R 213, considered.

R v MIDDLIN-HANNAH
[2020] SADC 31
Introduction

The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury.
Mr Middlin-Hannah (hereinafter referred to as the accused) is charged with two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (‘CSA’).
Prior to the accused’s arraignment the particulars as to count 1 were amended without objection to broaden the dates between which the offence was said to have been committed. The particulars of the first count are that Bradley John Middlin-Hannah between the 18^th day of July 2017 and 21^st day of July 2017 at Edwardstown, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely MDMA, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug. The particulars of the second count are that Bradley John Middlin-Hannah between the 31 (sic) day of July 2017 and the 3^rd day of August 2017 at Richmond, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely MDMA, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
The prosecution called two witnesses: Detective Brevet Sergeant Napper (‘DBS Napper’) and Detective Brevet Sergeant Wall (‘DBS Wall’). DBS…

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 Middlin-Hannah

Details

AGLC: R v Middlin-Hannah [2020] SADC 31
Case: [2020] SADC 31
Decision Date: 26 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Middlin-Hannah, faced the court on two counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically MDMA. The case before the court did not involve the physical seizure of the MDMA in question but instead relied heavily on text message exchanges to establish the elements of the charges. The central issue for the court was to determine whether these messages were sufficient to prove that Middlin-Hannah had offered or agreed to sell MDMA or had otherwise participated in the sale process. Additionally, the court had to consider whether actual possession of the MDMA at the time of any such offer or agreement was a necessary condition to satisfy the statutory requirements.

The court examined the statutory definition of trafficking and the specific language used in the relevant sections. It was noted that the legislation does not explicitly require possession of the drug at the time of the offer or agreement to sell. Instead, the court had to interpret whether the term "sell" in the context of the statute required more than just an agreement or offer to sell. The court concluded that the plain meaning of "sell" in the statute did not necessitate actual possession at the time of the agreement or offer. Therefore, the text message exchanges, which demonstrated an agreement to sell MDMA, were sufficient to establish the elements of the offence.

Having determined the appropriate interpretation of the statutory language, the court found Middlin-Hannah guilty on both counts. The evidence provided through the text messages was deemed sufficient to prove the necessary intent and participation in the sale process, without requiring physical possession of the MDMA. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to criminalise the offer or agreement to sell controlled substances, regardless of whether the accused had possession of the substance at the time.

Orders