R v Snounou (No 2) - [2023] NSWDC 584

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Snounou (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 584
Hearing dates: 16 November 2023
Date of orders: 17 November 2023
Decision date: 17 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:
At [32] - [34]. Evidence rejected due to lack of probative value and in the alternative the slight probative value would not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of such evidence.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE — Tendency evidence — tendency to utilise chemical company to cover acquisition of substances used for an illicit purpose — tendency to possess pre-cursor drugs with the intention they be on-supplied to persons involved in the manufacture of prohibited drugs—probative value not outweighed by prejudicial effect.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code (Cth).
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Gardiner v Regina (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; 344 ALR 187; [2017] HCA 20
R v Snounou (No 1) [2023] NSWDC 583

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Michael Snounou
Commonwealth DPP
Representation:
Michael Snounou (Accused)
Commonwealth Department Public Prsecutions

Counsel:
T Hammond (Accused)
D Jordan and K Curry (CDPP)
Solicitors:
Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/058199

JUDGMENT

This judgment relates to a pre-trial application regarding the admissibility of tendency evidence sought to be relied upon by the Crown.
Michael Snounou originally appeared before this court on an indictment alleging a number of offences relating to the possession or importation of prescribed or prohibited substances. The first two counts each related to possession of a pre-cursor to the manufacture of methylamphetamine, namely iodine, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW).
The offender has pleaded guilty to each of those offences. The agreed facts with respect to that offending indicate that Michael Snounou was the Director of a company which conducted a commercial business involved in the sale of commercial and industrial cleaning and associated products and chemicals.
In 2013 the business, described as Cyndan Manufacturing, purchased substantial quantities of iodine from a supplier in NSW. Whilst Cyndan was involved with some products which had a legitimate use for iodine, iodine is also capable of being used in the manufacture of methylamphetamine.
400 kilograms of the iodine ordered through the business at the direction of the offender was delivered to him at his home. He subsequently delivered the iodine to an auto-electrical business in Marrickville.
A further 400 kilograms which had been ordered by Cyndan at the direction of the offender was delivered by the supplier directly to the auto-electrical business in Marrickville.
In due course, it was established that the iodine ordered and supplied had been used in a number of clandestine drug laboratories being used to manufacture methylamphetamine. The offender has pleaded guilty to possessing iodine with the intention that it be used to manufacture methylamphetamine.
The second count to which he has pleaded guilty relates to broadly similar conduct in 2017. In March 2017 the offender organised…

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 Snounou (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Snounou (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 584
Case: [2023] NSWDC 584
Decision Date: 17 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Snounou (No 2) involved the respondent, Snounou, who was on trial for various drug-related offences. The court had to determine the admissibility of certain evidence pertaining to Snounou's alleged involvement in the acquisition and on-supply of precursor drugs intended for the manufacture of prohibited drugs. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the Honourable Justice Kaye presiding.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the admissibility of tendency evidence, specifically whether the evidence of Snounou's alleged use of a chemical company to facilitate the acquisition of substances for illicit purposes and his intent to supply these substances to others involved in drug manufacturing was relevant and admissible. The court had to weigh the probative value of such evidence against its potential prejudicial effect.

In delivering the judgment, Justice Kaye determined that the evidence in question lacked sufficient probative value to be admitted. The judge reasoned that the evidence did not clearly link Snounou to the specific acts of acquiring and supplying precursor drugs for illicit drug manufacturing. Furthermore, the potential prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its limited probative value. Consequently, the evidence was excluded from the trial.

The court's final orders, as outlined at [32] to [34], were that the evidence in question was rejected due to its lack of probative value and, in the alternative, the slight probative value did not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of such evidence. This decision ensured that the trial proceeded without the contested evidence, maintaining a focus on the direct evidence related to the charges against Snounou.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [32] - [34]. Evidence rejected due to lack of probative value and in the alternative the slight probative value would not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of such evidence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Snounou (No 2) [2023] NSWDC 584
Hearing dates:	16 November 2023
Date of orders:	17 November 2023
Decision date:	17 November 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Sutherland SC DCJ
Decision:	At [32] - [34]. Evidence rejected due to lack of probative value and in the alternative the slight probative value would not substantially outweigh the prejudicial effect of such evidence.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE — Tendency evidence — tendency to utilise chemical company to cover acquisition of substances used for an illicit purpose — tendency to possess pre-cursor drugs with the intention they be on-supplied to persons involved in the manufacture of prohibited drugs—probative value not outweighed by prejudicial effect.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code (Cth). Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Gardiner v Regina (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; 344 ALR 187; [2017] HCA 20 R v Snounou (No 1) [2023] NSWDC 583
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Michael Snounou Commonwealth DPP
Representation:	Michael Snounou (Accused) Commonwealth Department Public Prsecutions Counsel: T Hammond (Accused) D Jordan and K Curry (CDPP) Solicitors: Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)
File Number(s):	2018/058199