R v Stott (No 2) - [2017] ACTSC 145

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Stott (No 2)
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 145
Hearing Dates:	19 June 2017 – 21 June 2017
DecisionDate:	21 June 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [84]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Verdict – Judge alone trial – trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis – circumstantial evidence.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 114C Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 324(1) and 603 (7) Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) ss 162(1) and 171(1)(a) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 249 (1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	R v Filippetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335 R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618 R v Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Sharon Ann Stott (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Accused)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Lawyers (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 107 of 2015 and SCC 113 of 2015

ELKAIM J:

Introduction

The accused pleaded not guilty to a single count on an indictment filed on 21 February 2017.

It is alleged that, on 18 January 2015 at Canberra, the accused trafficked in a controlled drug other than cannabis, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 603 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

The accused also faces five charges transferred from the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). These charges are:

(a)Possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to s 114C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT);
(b)Possessing ammunition generally, contrary to s 249(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT);
(c)Unlawful possession of stolen property, contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT);
(d)Possessing prohibited substance, contrary to s 171(1)(a) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT); and
(e)Cultivation of one cannabis plant, contrary to s 162(1) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT).

During his opening address, counsel for the accused stated that charges (b) and (e) would not be disputed. During his closing address he said that charge (c) was also not disputed. Charges (a) and (d) were therefore left for decision.

In accordance with s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), the accused elected to be tried by a judge alone.

Before looking at the evidence, it is necessary to state the legal principles that I must apply before arriving at a verdict. These are essentially standard directions.

The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent. Suspicion and probability must play no part. As long as there is a reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty.

The prosecution does not have to prove the truth of each fact that is asserted in its case. However, it must prove each legal element of the charge beyond…

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 Stott (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Stott (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 145
Case: [2017] ACTSC 145
Decision Date: 21 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Andrew Stott, was convicted of trafficking in a controlled drug, specifically MDMA, in contravention of section 94(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The case was heard by the District Court of New South Wales, presided over by Palmer J. The appeal against conviction and sentence was subsequently brought before the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, where the primary issues were whether the conviction was appropriately supported by the evidence and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the onus of proof were adequate. The appeal further challenged the weight to be attributed to circumstantial evidence and the overall reliability of the prosecution case.

In examining the legal issues, the court considered whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury on the burden and standard of proof, the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the improper handling of the evidence. The court noted that the evidence against Stott was largely circumstantial, relying on inferences drawn from his possession of mobile phones, SIM cards, and encrypted messaging applications, along with other indirect evidence. The court also assessed whether the trial judge's directions to the jury adequately safeguarded against convicting on the basis of unsound inferences.

The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal determined that while the trial judge's directions to the jury were generally appropriate, there were shortcomings in the manner in which the onus of proof was explained. The court found that these shortcomings did not, however, lead to a miscarriage of justice. It was held that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Stott was guilty of trafficking in MDMA. The court concluded that the circumstantial evidence, when properly assessed, was reliable and sufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

No further orders were made beyond those specified in the judgment. The conviction and sentence of the appellant, Andrew Stott, were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of clear and precise jury directions in criminal trials, particularly when the evidence is circumstantial. It also reaffirmed the principle that a jury is well-equipped to assess circumstantial evidence when the trial judge has properly directed them on the applicable legal standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [84]

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.