R v Morris - [2017] SADC 132

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MORRIS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 132
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
1 December 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - POSSESSION
Accused found guilty of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32(2), s 32(2)(5)(b); Controlled Substances (General) Regulations 2000 s 6(6); R v Phung (2003) 141 A Crim R 311; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; Abbott v Western Australia (2005) 152 A Crim R 186; R v Carr-Briant [1943] KB 607; R v Jeppe [1978] WAR 124; R v Peters [1995] 2 Cr App 7; R v Yalman [1998] 2 Cr App R 269; R v Edwards [1998] Crim LR 207; R v Guney [1998] 2 Cr App R 242; R v Soteriou (2013) 118 SASR 119; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(2), s 34P(3); KRM v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 221; Re Van Beelan (1974) 9 SASR 163; R v Brown (1913) 17 CLR 570; R v Copeland (1997) 194 LSJS 1; R v Jenner (2000) 110 A Crim R 512; R v Ciantar (2006) 167 A Crim R 504; Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1; R v Neilan (1991) 52 A Crim R 303, referred to.
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293; Sheppard v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; De Gruchy v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 85, applied.

R v MORRIS
[2017] SADC 132
The issues

Vicky Morris entered a plea not guilty to a single count of trafficking in a controlled drug, found in a car driven by her at the relevant time. Her defence is that she did not possess and had no knowledge of it. The prosecution case is that the combination of the circumstances prove she was in knowing possession and that the offence is therefore proven.
Core facts
Ms Morris is charged with trafficking in methylamphetamine, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Another Judge of the court made an order for trial by Judge alone some time ago.
On Sunday 12 April 2014 at about 2.16 am, uniformed police travelling North East in a marked police car on Payneham Road Glynde, pulled over a BMW registered to her at her place of residence in Paradise.[1] She was the sole occupant and driver of that vehicle.
[1] Exhibits P7 and P1 respectively.
Police searched the vehicle as well as her handbag and a glasses case. They found and seized what turned out on later chemical examination to be 2.52 g of methylamphetamine of 79 per cent purity, packaged in six separate resealable plastic bags taken from the glasses case. They also found and seized a set of small electronic scales, an ice pipe and two…

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 Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Morris [2017] SADC 132
Case: [2017] SADC 132
Decision Date: 1 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morris, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The prosecution alleged that Morris was found with a quantity of methamphetamine at his residence during a police raid. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt that Morris had possession of the methamphetamine at the time of the raid. This involved examining the nature of possession, whether actual or constructive, and the circumstances leading to the discovery of the drugs.

The court considered the elements of the offence and the applicable legal standards for proving possession. It examined the direct and circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the police officers who conducted the raid and found the drugs. The court also considered the defence’s arguments that the methamphetamine did not belong to Morris, but rather to another individual present at the scene. The analysis required determining whether the prosecution had established a chain of custody and whether the defence's contentions sufficiently raised reasonable doubt.

In its judgment, the court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof. The evidence showed that the drugs were found in a location under Morris's control, and there was no credible evidence to support the defence’s claims that the drugs belonged to someone else. The court concluded that the totality of the evidence pointed to Morris’s possession of the methamphetamine. Therefore, the court found Morris guilty of the charge of possession of a controlled substance. The final orders of the court included the imposition of a penalty, which involved both a fine and a period of imprisonment.

Orders