R v Norton-St Clair & Riddle - [2005] SASC 348

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v NORTON-ST CLAIR & RIDDLE
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Gray)
13 September 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS
Appeal and additional leave to appeal applications - each appellant was convicted in the District Court for offences contrary to s 32(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 - issues on appeal - admissibility of evidence - directions relating to the use of evidence - directions given on liability for joint enterprise not explicit in prosecution case as presented - directions as to what amounted to the offence - whether the verdict was unreasonable in all of the circumstances - leave applications refused - appeal dismissed.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 32(1)(b); Summary Offences Act 1953 s 67; Police Act 1998 (SA), referred to.
R v Long (2002) 137 A Crim R 263; R v Johnson (No 2) (2004) 143 A Crim R 395, applied.

R v NORTON-ST CLAIR & RIDDLE
[2005] SASC 348
Court of Criminal appeal: Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ

DOYLE CJ: Ms Norton-St Clair and Mr Riddle were tried jointly in the District Court on an Information charging them with taking part in the manufacture of a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 32(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA).
Each of them was found guilty by the jury.
They appeal against their convictions. In addition to the grounds on which an appeal is available as of right, or by leave already granted, each of them seeks leave to appeal on certain grounds on which a Judge refused them leave to appeal. That application for leave to appeal was considered at the same time as the hearing of the appeal on the other grounds.
The following issues arise on the appeal.
First, a challenge to the admission of evidence of the finding of a syringe and three tablets containing an illicit drug, commonly called ecstasy, in the bedroom of the house in which the offence was allegedly committed. Second, a challenge to the directions relating to the use of that evidence. Third, a challenge to the directions given by the Judge dealing with the liability of Ms Norton-St Clair on the basis of joint enterprise, and a linked complaint about the directions given by the Judge as to the significance of the fact that she was aware that a step in the manufacture of methylamphetamine was taking place at the house, in the event that such knowledge on her part was proved. Fourth, a challenge to the directions to the jury as to what amounted to taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Fifth, a submission by each of the appellants that the verdict was unreasonable, meaning that in all of the circumstances it was not open to the jury to be satisfied…

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 Norton-St Clair & Riddle

Details

AGLC: R v Norton-St Clair & Riddle [2005] SASC 348
Case: [2005] SASC 348
Decision Date: 13 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Norton-St Clair & Riddle involved an appeal against convictions in the District Court for offences contrary to s 32(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The legal issues addressed in the appeal pertained to the admissibility of evidence, specifically the discovery of a syringe and tablets in a bedroom, and the directions given to the jury regarding liability for joint enterprise and the definition of the offence. The appellants argued that the evidence was either irrelevant or should have been excluded due to its prejudicial effect. They also contended that the directions given to the jury were inadequate, particularly in relation to the concept of "association" with the discovered items and the liability for joint enterprise.

The court considered the arguments regarding the admissibility of the evidence and concluded that the items were indeed probative of guilt if the jury believed they belonged to or were in the possession of the accused. The court found that the judge provided appropriate directions to the jury, instructing them to disregard the evidence if they were not satisfied that the accused were associated with the items. The judge also cautioned the jury against using the evidence to infer bad character or likelihood of committing the offence. Although the court acknowledged that a more detailed explanation of "association" might have been beneficial, it was satisfied that the jury understood the directions given. The court also found no merit in the argument that the directions on liability for joint enterprise were insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The reasoning of the court was that the evidence was properly admitted and the directions given to the jury were adequate, thus the verdicts were not unreasonable. Both judges agreed that the appeals should be dismissed, supporting the reasoning provided by the Chief Justice.

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

Ms Norton-St Clair’s case was that she was an innocent bystander, who happened to be at the house when the police arrived. She had nothing to do with any of the items found in the house. She was not living there.The evidence of finding a syringe and tablets – was it relevant and admissible? Mr Niarchos, counsel for Mr Riddle, submits that the evidence of the police finding the syringe and three ecstasy tablets in the bedroom should not have been admitted. Mr Stokes, counsel for Ms Norton-St Clair, supports this submission. Mr Niarchos submits that the evidence was irrelevant. Alternatively, it should have been excluded because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value it had. I do not accept that submission. If the jury was satisfied that the syringe and tablets were the property of the accused or one of them, or in their possession or that of one of them, or had been or were to be used by the accused or one of them, then these items were capable of being probative of guilt. The use of illicit drugs by one or other of the accused could provide a motive or reason why that person took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. It might have been done to raise money to purchase drugs, or with a view to using the methylamphetamine for the purposes of the accused. It is not uncommon for this kind of link to exist in cases such as the present one. No fingerprints or DNA evidence were proved to link either of the accused to the syringe or to the tablets. As well, the conclusion that the accused were living in the house and using the bedroom in which the items were found itself depended on circumstantial evidence. But to say that merely demonstrates that the case as a whole was a circumstantial one. These points go to the weight of the evidence, not to its admissibility. Accordingly, the evidence was admissible. It required appropriate directions from the Judge. The Judge gave the jury a clear direction on the required topics. He told the jury that these items assisted the prosecution case only if the jury was satisfied that the accused were “associated” with them. He told the jury to “completely disregard” the evidence if they were not so satisfied. A short explanation of what the Judge meant by “associated” would have been helpful, but in all the circumstances I am satisfied that the jury would have understood it to mean that they had to be satisfied of the matters to which I referred above. The Judge told the jury that the relevance of these items, if the accused were associated with them, was that they might indicate a reason for the accused taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. The Judge warned the jury in clear and firm terms against reasoning that if the accused were associated with the syringe and tablets, they were of bad character or were persons likely to have committed the offence charged. That led to the Judge emphasising that the only use of the evidence was to provide a reason or motive for the manufacture of methylamphetamine.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I would refuse leave to Mr Riddle to appeal on this ground. The argument that he advances is, in substance, a repetition of the argument relating to the Judge’s directions about proof that the accused were engaged in the production of methylamphetamine.Conclusion For those reasons I would dismiss the appeal by each accused against their respective convictions. BLEBY J: I agree that both appeals should be dismissed for the reasons given by the Chief Justice. GRAY J: I would dismiss these appeals. I agree with the orders proposed by the Chief Justice. I agree with his reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.