DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SCHAEFER, SCHIWORSKI & BROWN
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Millsteed
9 August 2005
CRIMINAL LAW
Trial by judge alone - accused jointly charged with two counts of taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine - key prosecution witness an accomplice and police informant - inherently suspect - evidence corroborated by individual circumstantial evidence - evidence relating to charges cross admissible on non-propensity and propensity reasoning bases - accused guilty of charged offences.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s32(1)(b); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1985 s285A; Juries Act 1927 s7(1)(a), referred to.
R v Day (2002) 82 SASR 85; R v McNamara [1987] VR 856; Yisrael v District Court of New South Wales (1996) 87 A Crim R 63; Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; R v Frangos (1979) 21 SASR 331; R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545; R v Kostic and Stefanopoulos [2004] SASC 406; R v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25; R v Clough (1992) 28 NSWLR 396; Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473; R v Russell [1933] VLR 59; Jones and Mirrless (1977) 65 Crim App R 250; R v Clarkson [1971] 1 WLR 1402; R v Bland [1988] Crim LR 41; Davies v DPP [1954] AC 378; R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658; R v Baker [2000] SASC 407; R v Forgione [1969] SASR 248; R v Williams (1978) SASR 423; R v Tyler [1994] 1 Qd R 675; Doney v The Queen (1990) 65 ALJR 45; R v Duke (1979) 22 SASR 46; R v Baker (2000) 78 SASR 103; R v Long and McDonnell (2002) 137 A Crim R 263; R v Smith (No 2) (1995) 64 SASR 1; Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461; Sutton v The Queen (1984) 152 CLR 528; R v Rowton (1865) 169 ER 1497; Melbourne v R (1999) 198 CLR 1; Esposito v R (unreported judgment) CCA (SA) S6390 21 July 1983; DPP v Coluccio (unreported judgment) Judge Lunn D3109 8 July 1994; R v Conley (1982) 30 SASR 226; R v Palaga (2001) 80 SASR 19, considered.

R v SCHAEFER, SCHIWORSKI & BROWN
[2005] SADC 101

This is a trial by judge alone.
The accused Klaus Dieter Schaefer, Arthur Gordon Schiworski and Daniel Craig Brown are jointly charged on information with two counts of taking part in the manufacture of a drug of a dependence, namely, methylamphetamine, contrary to s32 (1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (CSA).
Short description of prosecution case
It is the prosecution’s case, that, on 4 July 2001, (count 1) and 2 August 2001 (count 2) the three accused took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine in an illicit drug laboratory located on a small rural property. The property, which belonged to the accused Schaefer, was situated 2kms from…

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 Schaefer, Schiworski & Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Schaefer, Schiworski & Brown [2005] SADC 101
Case: [2005] SADC 101
Decision Date: 9 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Schaefer, Schiworski & Brown involved the trial of three defendants, Klaus Dieter Schaefer, Arthur Gordon Schiworski and Daniel Craig Brown, charged with taking part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine on two occasions in 2001. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of an accomplice and police informant, P, who had been involved in an undercover operation. The defendants were found guilty on both counts of the indictment, and the present case discusses the reasoning behind the verdicts. The court considered the legal principles involved in the case, including the elements of the offence, complicity and the admissibility of accomplice evidence. The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, relying on the evidence of P, corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence. The defendants' arguments, including challenges to the credibility of P and the legality of the undercover operation, were rejected. The court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of all three defendants.

Orders