R v Piening - [2013] SADC 172

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PIENING
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 172
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Davison
19 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
Accused charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug (methylamphetamine)
Verdict: Guilty
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s4, s4(1), s32(3), s32(5), s33P; Evidence Act (1929) SA s34P, s34P(2)(a), s34P(2)(b), s34P(4), referred to.
R v Soteriou [2013] SASCFC 114; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75; Azzopardi v R (2001) 205 CLR 50; R v Weetra [2010] SASCFC 52; R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; He Kaw The v R (1985) 157 CLR 523; Tabe v R (2005) 225 CLR 418; R v Power (1996) 87 ACR 407; R v Ciantar (2006) 167 ACR 504; DPP v Brooks [1974] AC 862, considered.

R v PIENING
[2013] SADC 172
Introduction

Mr Piening is charged with trafficking in a controlled drug, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). Particulars of the charge are as follows:
David Piening on the 2^nd day of May 2012 at Adelaide, knowingly trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine.
The charge relates to the discovery by police of a bumbag being worn by the accused at about 4am on 2 May 2012. That bumbag contained a small amount of a white powder and a container that had a crystalline substance. These substances were analysed. There was 5.52g of powder containing 2.66 grams of methylamphetamine in the container and 0.019g of methylamphetamine in the bag. The substance in the container was therefore 48.1% pure.[1] The issue in this trial is whether Mr Piening was in possession of the substances and if so has he displaced the presumption.
[1] P1 Agreed Facts
In this matter there was a pilot program utilising the Samsung tablet. The exhibits including the photographs, P7, a map of the central part of Adelaide, P2, videotape of the search and at the scene and the property being searched at the Watch House, P5, and CCTV footage from Hindley Street were uploaded onto the tablet, P6. This was done with the consent of both parties. The defence and prosecution were provided with a tablet with the same material uploaded. During the course of the trial this material was accessed via the Samsung tablet and when necessary was transmitted to the television over the witness box so that it would be viewed by anyone in court. It was therefore possible to zoom in and out of the photographs that had been taken and uploaded onto the tablet and to manoeuvre easily through the CCTV footage and video footage that had been tendered.
Stay of proceedings
The accused applied for a stay of these proceedings on the following grounds:
PARTICULARS of the grounds relied upon are as follows:
Discreditable Conduct Notice –…

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 Piening

Details

AGLC: R v Piening [2013] SADC 172
Case: [2013] SADC 172
Decision Date: 19 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Piening was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Mr Piening, was charged with drug trafficking offences, specifically the importation and possession with intent to supply of a commercial quantity of cocaine. The matter was heard on appeal from a conviction in the District Court, where Mr Piening was sentenced to imprisonment.

The central legal issue before the court was the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction of drug trafficking. The appellant argued that the evidence did not establish that he had the requisite knowledge or intent to engage in trafficking activities. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Piening was aware of the nature and quantity of the drugs and intended to distribute them commercially.

The court considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, drug quantity, and circumstances surrounding the appellant's possession. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as it demonstrated the appellant's knowledge of the drugs and his intent to supply them. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the elements of the drug trafficking charge, and the evidence was overwhelming in establishing Mr Piening's role in the trafficking activities. The appellant's argument that he lacked the requisite knowledge and intent was rejected by the court.

Orders