R v Suwannagate

[2010] NSWDC 201

CITATION:	R v Suwannagate [2010] NSWDC 201
HEARING DATE(S):	17/08/10, 18/08/10, 19/08/10, 20/08/10
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 September 2010
JURISDICTION:	Crime
JUDGMENT OF:	Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION:	Count 1 - Guilty Count 2 - Not Guilty Count 3 - Guilty Count 4 - Not Guilty
CATCHWORDS:	CRIME - supply of prohibited drugs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Evidence Act 1995 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CASES CITED:	R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292 He Kaw The The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 423 R v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64 R v Filippette (1984) 13 A Crim R 335 R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400
PARTIES:	Regina Busrakum Suwannagate
FILE NUMBER(S):	2009/00055403
COUNSEL:	Mr B Rowe (Crown) Mr P Lowe (Accused)

Judgment

Introduction

1 Busrakum Suwannagate was arraigned on 17 August 2010 on four counts alleging various offences committed by her on 30 May 2009 at Marrickville.

Count 1 alleged that she did supply a prohibited drug, namely 56.52 grams of 3-4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine.

Count 2 alleged she did supply a prohibited drug, namely 8.16 grams of cocaine.

Count 3 alleged that she supplied a prohibited drug, namely 9.8 grams of amphetamine.

Count 4 alleged that she did knowingly have in her possession for an unlawful purpose a paper resembling, or apparently intended to resemble, a $100 Australian banknote.

2 The accused pleaded ‘not guilty’ to each count and the trial proceeded as a trial by judge alone in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the election for a trial by judge alone having been made before the date of trial.

3 Certain facts were agreed between the parties to which I will refer shortly, some evidence was given by police officers involved in the arrest of the accused and in the accused’s case she gave evidence and called evidence from Blair Athol Murphy and Jay McDermott.

4 At the conclusion of submissions the Court reserved to deliberate upon the appropriate verdicts. This occurred on Friday 20 August 2010, when the Court had other part heard matters to deal with at the time. The verdicts of the Court delivered on that day were ‘guilty’, in relation to Count 1 and Count 3, and ‘not guilty’ in relation to Count 2 and 4. As I was to go on leave that day the judgment upon verdict had to be reserved.

5 These reasons constitute the judgment upon the verdicts that were returned on 20 August 2010. Full reasons would have been given on the delivery of the verdicts had adequate time been available. At this time I do not have a transcript of the evidence at trial.

6 In the context of the issues that arose in this trial, bearing in mind the Crown case was one of “deemed supply”, pursuant to ss.25/29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, (“the Act”). There was no issue that the particularised prohibited drugs in each count were found by the police in the accused’s car, in the…