R v Panas - [2022] SADC 149

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v PANAS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 149
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Schammer
16 December 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - MANUFACTURE, PRODUCTION OR CULTIVATION
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ARSON AND LIKE OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - STATEMENTS - RECORDS OF INTERVIEW - DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
On Sunday 19 May 2019, at about 3:00pm, a fire broke out at a property on The Esplanade, Henley Beach (the property).
On 17 May 2019, the accused, Andreas Nikiforos Panas, rented the property through AirBNB for a period of six nights, commencing that day.
The fire came to the attention of neighbours who gained access to the property. They found the accused and another man inside the property and helped them to safety. The accused then left the property prior to the arrival of emergency personnel. The other man attempted to run away from the property, towards the beach, but was followed and apprehended by police.
In the upstairs bathroom of the property was a clandestine laboratory being used to produce methylamphetamine and a total of 1,225 g of pure methylamphetamine (count 1).
Investigators determined the fire emanated from the gas burner being used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine (count 5).
In the rear courtyard of the property, was a clear plastic tub containing a mixed substance of 4-Hydroxybutanoic acid (GHB) and water, with a total weight of 6.49 kg (count 2).
In a drawer in the upstairs bathroom, were two small plastic resealable bags. One bag contained a crystalline substance which weighed 18.5 g and contained 14.7 g of pure methylamphetamine and one bag contained a crystalline substance containing 1.94 g of methylamphetamine (count 3).
A 600 ml plastic Mount Franklin water bottle was found in a public carpark a short distance from the property, in the vicinity of where the other man had been apprehended. In that bottle was a mixture of GHB and water weighing 320 g (count 4).
As to count 1, the prosecution case is that the accused and another man, were engaged in a joint enterprise to manufacture a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine at the property. In the alternative, it was submitted that the accused had taken part in a step in the process of manufacture in that he had provided or allowed the use of the property for the purpose of the manufacture of methylamphetamine and guarded or concealed equipment substances or materials.
As to count 2, the prosecution case is that the accused was jointly in possession of the GHB found in the plastic tub, being a large commercial quantity, or in the alternative, that the accused had taken part in a step in the process of sale of that GHB, in that he had provided or…

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 Panas

Details

AGLC: R v Panas [2022] SADC 149
Case: [2022] SADC 149
Decision Date: 16 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Panas, was convicted by a jury in the County Court of Victoria for manufacturing and cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis, dealing and distributing the same, and arson. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices King, Maxwell, and Weinberg. The issues that were central to this appeal were the admissibility of the appellant's statements recorded during police interviews, and whether the trial judge erred in admitting these statements into evidence. The appellant argued that the statements should have been excluded due to the absence of legal representation during the interviews, which violated the provisions of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the exclusion of the statements was mandatory under the discretion provided by section 138 of the Evidence Act 2008. It was determined that while the absence of legal representation was a breach of the appellant's rights, it did not automatically lead to the exclusion of the statements. The court examined the circumstances of the interviews, the voluntariness of the statements, and the overall fairness of the trial. The judges concluded that the statements were properly obtained and the trial judge did not err in admitting them as evidence. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the statements into evidence. The judges found that the appellant's rights under the Charter were breached, but this did not necessitate the exclusion of the evidence. The voluntariness of the statements and the overall fairness of the trial were upheld, and the trial judge's discretion was exercised correctly. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

Orders