R v Morrison - [2002] SASC 399

R v MORRISON
[2002] SASC 399
Court of Criminal Appeal: Nyland, Williams and Gray JJ

NYLAND J I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons expressed by Gray J.
WILLIAMS J I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.
GRAY J This is an appeal against conviction. The appellant Sharon Lee Morrison was charged with producing cannabis and possessing cannabis for sale.[1] On 29 January 2002 in the presence of the jury she pleaded guilty to the charge of producing cannabis. The trial proceeded that day on the second count. The appellant was unanimously convicted on 31 January 2002.
[1] “ Statement of Offence
The Crown Case
The Crown case was that the appellant possessed cannabis for the purpose of sale. The case was circumstantial. On 26 April 2001 five police officers attended the appellant’s residence. When at the front door the police detected an odour of cannabis. The appellant was telephoned at work. The police walked along the boundary to the property. They located a shed. A strong smell of cannabis was detected and a buzzing sound was heard. The appellant arrived soon after. When the appellant unlocked the shed police found a pit which was covered with a tubular frame and black plastic. The pit contained extensive lighting. Two cannabis plants and a bucket of green vegetable matter were in the pit. In another section of the shed two more plants were found under a frame with lights. Branches of cannabis plants were suspended on 11 coat hangers. A half full garbage bag of leaf material was found on a table along with a polystyrene box of green vegetable matter. Twelve cannabis seedlings were located in seven pots in the laundry area of the appellant’s house. Plant material was hanging from coat hangers in a shower cubicle. Other items associated with cannabis were located including plant material in a plastic tub, a glass jar of plant material marked with weight measure, a book entitled “Indoor marijuana horticulture,” a pipe, a bong and various sized plastic bags. Another police officer Detective Sergeant Lester Martin gave evidence concerning cannabis and its use.
A certificate of analysis from the Forensic Science Centre which identified the seized cannabis was tendered. It provided:
“ -A sealed paper bag containing a black garbag with 1731.5g of damp Cannabis leaf material.
-A sealed paper bag containing 370.0g of slightly moist Cannabis leaf material.
-A sealed paper bag containing 1548.0g of slightly damp mouldy female Cannabis plant material on cut stem pieces up to approximately 30 cm long.
-A sealed paper bag containing a plastic bag with 346.5g of slightly damp mouldy Cannabis leaf material with some stem pieces and several items of rubbish.
-A sealed paper bag containing a paper bag with 119.5g of female Cannabis plant material.
-A sealed paper bag containing a broken jar with 26.5g of Cannabis leaf and female flower material.
-A sealed paper bag containing a shopping bag with 330.0g…

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 Morrison

Details

AGLC: R v Morrison [2002] SASC 399
Case: [2002] SASC 399
Decision Date: 5 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Sharon Lee Morrison, was charged with producing and possessing cannabis for sale, offences under the Controlled Substances Act, 1984. Morrison appealed against her conviction, arguing that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice due to certain issues concerning the evidence presented by the Crown. The appeal was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction and whether there was any risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The court considered whether the prosecutor had adequately cross-examined the appellant to establish a sufficient foundation for the jury to draw certain inferences. It was found that although not all issues were directly put to the appellant, there was a sufficient foundation laid in cross-examination to invite the jury to draw the relevant inferences. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the amount of cannabis material in the appellant's possession. The court concluded that the Crown's case was supported by an extensive body of evidence and that the amount of cannabis material in the appellant's possession was well in excess of the amount required to invoke the presumption. Therefore, there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Based on the above findings, the court concluded that the only complaint that had been made out concerned the amount of head that could be produced from a healthy female plant. However, the court acknowledged that this alone would not lead to a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was dismissed, and Morrison's conviction was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

NYLAND J WILLIAMS J GRAY J

There is no substance to this complaint. The prosecutor canvassed these matters with the appellant. Although not all were directly put a sufficient foundation was laid in cross examination to enable the prosecutor to invite the jury to draw the above inferences. No complaint was made to the trial judge. No request was made for the appellant to be recalled.[18] No error has been demonstrated. [18] See R v Karger (2002) 221 LSJS 224 at [125]; The Queen v Killick (1980) 24 SASR 137 at 153; Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367 at 375Conclusion The only complaint that has been made out concerns the amount of head that could be produced from a healthy female plant. As earlier observed counsel for the appellant acknowledged that this alone would not lead to a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Crown case was supported by an extensive body of evidence. The amount of cannabis material in the possession of the appellant both harvested and growing was substantial and well in excess of the amount required to invoke the presumption. There was no risk of a miscarriage of justice in this case. The appeal should be dismissed. LIST OF CITATIONS AS THEY APPEAR IN THE JUDGMENT1 “ Statement of OffenceProducing Cannabis (section 32(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984)Particulars of OffenceSharon Lee Morrison between the 1st day of March 2001 and the 27th March 2001 at Seacombe Gardens, knowingly produced cannabis, a prohibited substance.Statement of OffencePossessing Cannabis for Sale (Section 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984)Particulars of OffenceSharon Lee Morrison on the 26th day of April 2001 at Seacombe Gardens, knowingly had cannabis, a prohibited substance, in her possession for the purposes of selling it to another person.It is further alleged that the said offence involved more than 2 kilograms of cannabis.”2 (1975) 13 SASR 84 at 883 [1944] AC 315 at pp 327-3284 [1962] QSR 214 at p 2215 (1949) 33 Cr App R 189, at pp 195-1966 The Queen v Bonython (1984-85) 38 SASR 45 at 46 per King CJ7 R v Humphrey (1998-99) 72 SASR 5588 Bennett v The Queen (1998) 144 FLR 3119 Marchesano v R (2000) 116 A Crim R 23710 (1992) 60 SASR 90 at 10311 (1986) 60 ALJ 597 at 60113 [1963] WAR 114 at 119-12014 (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 150 at 15515 (1975) 12 SASR 151 at 15216 [1980] 1 QB 434 at 43717 (1990) 46 A Crim R 282 at 36118 See R v Karger (2002) 221 LSJS 224 at [125]; The Queen v Killick (1980) 24 SASR 137 at 153; Reid v Kerr (1974) 9 SASR 367 at 375

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NYLAND J, WILLIAMS J, GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.