R v Norman - [2005] SASC 89

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v NORMAN
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
15 March 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
Appeal against conviction in the District Court - whether trial judge misdirected jury in relation to the onus of proof - whether the conviction in respect of count 2 was infected by the direction - appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence imposed in the District Court - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether trial judge erred in failing to suspend the sentence of imprisonment - appeal dismissed.
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), s 41, referred to.
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507, discussed.
Murray v The Queen (2002) 211 CLR 193, considered.

R v NORMAN
[2005] SASC 89
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Duggan and Vanstone JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal against each conviction and the appeal against sentence. I agree with the reasons given by Vanstone J.
DUGGAN J. In my view the appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed for the reasons given by Vanstone J.
VANSTONE J: Tracey Leanne Norman appeals with leave against her conviction in the District Court for possessing methylamphetamine for sale and unlawful possession of $26,650, and against the single sentence imposed for those offences, being imprisonment for two years and six months with a non-parole period of ten months.
The appellant was tried before a jury in the District Court sitting at Mount Gambier. The information before the court charged only the two counts. Both offences were alleged to have occurred on 2 January 2004. On that day police attended at the appellant’s home in possession of a search warrant. During the search they located in the appellant’s handbag 2.48 grams of methylamphetamine paste (containing 0.43 grams of methylamphetamine) along with $500 in cash, and, in a bedside drawer, two paper bags containing a total of $26,150. Also found were various hand-written notes recording monetary amounts against various names. The appellant told police that some of the money had been won on horses and poker machines and that $10,000 of it belonged to her mother. The appellant did not dispute at trial that all these items were in her possession. She said that the methylamphetamine was for her own use.
Because the quantity of methylamphetamine was less than 2 grams, the statutory presumption as to purpose of possession did not arise. Count 2 was an offence against s 41(1) Summary Offences Act 1953. That section provides as follows:
41. Unlawful possession of personal property
(1) A person who has possession of personal property which, either at the time of possession or at any subsequent…

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 Norman

Details

AGLC: R v Norman [2005] SASC 89
Case: [2005] SASC 89
Decision Date: 15 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Norman, the appellant was convicted in the District Court on two counts, and subsequently appealed both the conviction and the sentence. The appellant contested the correctness of the jury direction by the trial judge regarding the onus of proof and argued that the trial judge erred in not suspending the sentence of imprisonment. The Supreme Court of [State] was tasked with reviewing these claims.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury concerning the onus of proof and whether this misdirection affected the validity of the conviction on count 2. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had erred in not suspending the sentence of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge had not misdirected the jury on the issue of the onus of proof, and any error in the direction did not impact the conviction on count 2. The court was also satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in not suspending the sentence. Consequently, both the appeal against the conviction and the appeal against the sentence were dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appellant's appeal against both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders