R v Perre - [2010] SADC 120

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PERRE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2010] SADC 120
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Beazley
9 September 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - CULTIVATION
Accused charged with taking part in the production of cannabis - two cannabis crops located on a property situated in dense scrub country at remote location - DPP alleges that the accused's involvement in the production was the alleged act of transporting two persons to work on the cannabis sites - prosecution case entirely of a circumstantial nature.
Held: combination of all circumstances insufficient to establish guilt - verdict of not guilty.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s 32(1)(b), s 32 (4), referred to.
R v Cosford & McDonnell-Smith [2007] SASC 147; R v Randylle (2006) 95 SASR 574; R v Abrahamson (1994) 63 SASR 139 at 143, discussed.

R v PERRE
[2010] SADC 120
Introduction

The accused is charged on Information dated 27 October 2009 with the offence of taking part in the production of a prohibited substance namely cannabis contrary to s 32(1) (b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The particulars of that offence are as follows:
Domenico Perre on the 16^th day of February 2007 at Malimong, knowingly took part in the production of cannabis, a prohibited substance.
It is further alleged that the number of plants involved was in excess of 100 plants.
Procedural Matters
·Trial by Judge Alone
The accused pleaded not guilty to the subject charge and elected to be tried by a Judge without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927. The election was made very late, contrary to Rule 8 of the Juries Rules made pursuant to that Act. The accused applied for a dispensation from those rules.
There is no need to detail the reasons as to why the application was made late, however, I was satisfied that there was a proper basis pursuant to Rule 16 of the Juries Rules to waive compliance with the prescribed time limits. I was further satisfied that the accused had been properly advised as to his rights prior to making his election. I accordingly granted the application that the trial proceed by Judge alone.
·Rule 9 Notice
The accused filed a Rule 9 Notice in which he applied for the following orders:
1.That evidence of a piece of tape located on a clamp attached to an underground watering system containing the name “Dominic” be excluded from evidence on the basis that it is not relevant or alternatively is more prejudicial than probative.[1] It is to be noted that the accused’s first name is Domenico.
2.That the evidence of a proposed witness, Senior Constable Daniel Galik, as to the description of a motor vehicle travelling along the road abutting the cannabis crop sites be excluded because of its allegedly vague and unreliable nature, and in the exercise of the Court’s general discretion.
3.That the evidence of…

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 Perre

Details

AGLC: R v Perre [2010] SADC 120
Case: [2010] SADC 120
Decision Date: 9 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Perre involved an individual who was accused of participating in the production of cannabis. Two cannabis crops were discovered on a property in a dense, remote scrubland. The Director of Public Prosecutions alleged that the accused's involvement in the production was limited to transporting two individuals to work on the cannabis sites. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused's participation in the transportation of the individuals to the cannabis sites was sufficient to constitute involvement in the production of the cannabis. The court needed to assess the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the accused's involvement in the cannabis production beyond reasonable doubt.

The court carefully examined the evidence and concluded that the prosecution had not proven the accused's involvement in the production of the cannabis beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, while suggestive, was not conclusive enough to establish the accused's guilt. As such, the court acquitted the accused of the charges.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be acquitted of all charges related to the cultivation and production of cannabis.

Orders