R v Miller - [2006] SASC 83

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v MILLER
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice Nyland)
22 March 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
Appeal against conviction for possessing methadone for sale and for unlawful possession of monies - whether error of law by way of impermissible reasoning from established facts - consideration of permissible inferences from established facts - consideration of weight to be given to established facts - appeal dismissed.

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - VERDICT AGAINST EVIDENCE OR WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
The appellant was charged with seven offences - one count of possessing acetyl morphine for sale contrary to s 32 (1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 – three counts of possessing methadone for sale contrary to s 32 (1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 – one count of selling methadone contrary to s 32 (1)(c) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 - two counts of possessing money by unlawful means contrary to s 41 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 – the appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of selling methadone contrary to s 32 (1)(c) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 and although pleading not guilty to the remaining counts the appellant admitted possessing the methadone tablets and the sums of money - the appellant was found not guilty on the first count - there being no dispute as to possession of methadone tablets or sums of money the trial Judge had regard to circumstantial evidence in determining whether the appellant intended to sell the methadone tablets - the trial Judge also had regard to circumstantial evidence in determining whether the appellant had come to the sums of money by unlawful means - the trial Judge found the only rational inference from a series of established facts was that the appellant intended to sell at least some of the methadone tablets - the trial Judge found the only rational inference from a series of established facts was that the appellant had come to the sums of money by unlawful means - appellant convicted in the District Court - the Court of Criminal Appeal found the trial Judge did not reason impermissibly - the trial Judge was not required to record in written reasons the directions he gave himself as to the uses to which evidence can be put or the weight to be given to evidence before him - in this case those directions would be no more than a routine form of guidance - no error of law - appeal dismissed.
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, discussed.

R v MILLER
[2006] SASC 83
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Perry and Nyland JJ

DOYLE CJ: Ms Miller appeals against convictions recorded by the District…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2006] SASC 83
Case: [2006] SASC 83
Decision Date: 22 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Miller, the appellant was convicted in the District Court of possessing methadone for sale and for unlawful possession of monies. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the conviction and determining whether any errors of law occurred during the trial. The appellant contested the verdict on several grounds, including the trial judge's reasoning from established facts and the weight given to circumstantial evidence.

The legal issues focused on whether the trial judge erred in their reasoning or misapplied the law when drawing inferences from the established facts. Specifically, the court examined whether the trial judge correctly inferred the appellant's intent to sell methadone and whether the funds possessed were derived from unlawful means. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge's reasoning was permissible and did not constitute an error of law. The judge was not required to provide detailed written reasons for their internal directions regarding the use of evidence and the weight to be assigned to it.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the trial judge's reasoning and decision-making process were sound, and no error of law was demonstrated. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The trial judge's determination that the appellant intended to sell some of the methadone and had obtained the money by unlawful means was upheld. The court found the trial judge's reasons adequate and sufficient, affirming the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Notice of Appeal contains 13 grounds of appeal. A number of them are no more than arguments, no doubt put to the Judge, why a not guilty verdict was appropriate. I will confine my reasons to the submissions by Mr Niarchos which were said to demonstrate error. Mr Niarchos, correctly, confined his submissions to those matters.Facts The first four counts arose from the police going to the appellant’s home on 7 February 2002, and searching it using a general search warrant. The appellant was present at the time. Count 1 was a charge of possessing acetyl morphine for sale. Count 2 was a charge of possessing methadone for sale. The appellant admitted possession in each case, but pleaded not guilty to the charge. Count 3 was a charge of selling methadone between 1 and 7 February 2002. Ms Miller pleaded guilty to that count. Count 4 was a charge of possession of money in the sum of $20,993.05 which money it was alleged was reasonably suspected of having been stolen. The other three counts arose from the police going once more to her premises, and once more searching them, this time on 23 February 2003. Ms Miller was present again. Count 5 was a charge of possessing methadone for sale, as was count 6. Again Ms Miller admitted possession of the methadone, but denied an intention to sell. Count 7 was a charge of unlawful possession of money in the sum of $20,980, which amount it was alleged was reasonably suspected of having been obtained by unlawful means. There was no dispute about what the police found on each occasion. The only issue was as to the explanation for the presence of some of the items, and as to the inference to be drawn from the evidence of what was found. Count 1 related to 50 packets found in the drawer of a cabinet in Ms Miller’s bedroom. The packets contained a white powder. Samples from some of the packets were analysed and were found to contain acetyl morphine. I gather that the case proceeded on the basis that all of the packets contained acetyl morphine. Acetyl morphine is a prohibited substance, and the evidence was that it is produced along the way to the production of heroin. Count 2 related to 21 physeptone tablets found in Ms Miller’s bedroom. They contained methadone, a drug of dependence. Methadone is a prescription drug, provided to addicts who are trying to break their drug addiction. Physeptone is a trade name under which methadone is sold. Count 3 related to four physeptone tablets that Ms Miller admitted selling to a friend whose prescription for methadone tablets had run out. Ms Miller sold her the tablets to help her out. She said that she had never done this before or since. Count 4 related to cash found in several different locations in Ms Miller’s bedroom. The evidence was that the notes were not new. The notes were a mix of denominations, including $5 notes and $10 notes. Most of them were $50 notes, amounting to just over $20,650. Count 5 related to ten physeptone tablets found, on the occasion of the second police visit, in a bedside table in Ms Miller’s bedroom.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Considered as a whole, the Judge’s reasons were adequate. No error of law has been demonstrated in the Judge’s reasons. Nor has any error in his process of reasoning been pointed to. I emphasise that I am not proceeding on the assumption that it was necessary for him to explain each and all of his findings of fact.Conclusion For those reasons no error in the verdict has been demonstrated. I would dismiss the appeal. PERRY J: In my view, the appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice. NYLAND J: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons expressed by the Chief Justice.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.