Legal Research
Cases
R v Ruiz-Avila

R v Ruiz-Avila

Case [2003] NSWCCA 264 26 September 2003

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
142 A Crim R 459

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Ruiz-Avila [2003] NSWCCA 264

HEARING DATE(S): 15/09/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Greg James J at 29; Newman AJ at 30

DECISION: See par 28

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Knowingly concerned in supply of ecstacy, cultivation of cannabis - use of premises leased by appellant - requirement of knowledge

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act 1901
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

CASES CITED: Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
R v Giorgi and Romeo (1981) 7 ACrim R 305
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473
R v Greatorex (1994) ACrimR 498
Histollo Pty Ltd v Dir-Gen of National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998) 45 NSWLR 661
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 253
Pereira v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 63 ALJR 1

PARTIES :
Regina
Robert Marck Ruiz-Avila

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60164/03

COUNSEL: D Frearson - Crown
S Odgers SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
M Ricci - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/41/0202

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : PR Bell DCJ

60164/03

HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
NEWMAN AJ
Friday 26 September 2003

Regina v Robert Marck Ruiz-Avila

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: The appellant, Robert Marck Ruiz-Avila, was tried in the District Court upon an indictment containing three counts:

1. Knowingly taking part in the supply of cannabis leaf on 27 March 2001;

2. Knowingly take part in the supply of ecstasy on the same date;

3. Knowingly taking part in the cultivation of cannabis between 7 July 2000 and 27 March 2001.

2 Put shortly, it was the Crown case that in late June 2000 the appellant signed a lease on a unit at Wollongong, which was to commence on 7 July, 2000. There was evidence from which it might be inferred that, although he paid the rent for the unit and had the keys to it, he did not live there. There was also evidence that several other men had access to the unit, but there was no evidence that he had sub-let it.

3 Towards the end of March 2001 the unit came to the attention of police as a result of a complaint of a pungent odour, which proved to be that of cannabis, emanating from it. On 27 March, 2001 police entered the unit, armed with a search warrant. It did not appear that anyone was living there, although a bank statement in the name of the appellant (directed to him at a different address) was found on the floor.

4 A large quantity of cannabis was found in various…

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 Ruiz-Avila

Details

AGLC: R v Ruiz-Avila [2003] NSWCCA 264
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 264
Decision Date: 26 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ruiz-Avila involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction of charges relating to drug supply. The appellant had leased a property which was subsequently used for the cultivation of cannabis and the supply of ecstasy. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contested his conviction on the basis that the prosecution had not proved he had the requisite knowledge of the activities on the property. The High Court was required to determine the extent of the appellant's knowledge and whether it was sufficient to support his conviction.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding the appellant's knowledge of the drug activities on the leased property. It held that the prosecution must prove that the appellant had knowledge of the use of the property for cultivating cannabis and supplying ecstasy. The court found that the prosecution had not proven the appellant had actual knowledge of these activities, but rather, it was established that the appellant was wilfully blind to the activities occurring on the property. The court held that wilful blindness was equivalent to actual knowledge for the purposes of criminal liability. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

The High Court determined that the appellant's wilful blindness to the activities on the property was sufficient to establish the requisite knowledge for the charges of knowingly being concerned in the supply of ecstasy and the cultivation of cannabis. The court found that the appellant had taken steps to avoid knowledge of the activities, which amounted to wilful blindness. The court held that wilful blindness was equivalent to actual knowledge, thus satisfying the mens rea requirement for the charges. The court further held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the issue of knowledge, and the conviction was properly upheld.

Orders