R v Talbot - [2013] SADC 158

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TALBOT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 158
Judgment of His Honour Judge Slattery
22 November 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - CULTIVATION
Criminal trial by Judge alone sitting without a jury - accused charged with cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis - accused elects to give evidence - whether elements of the offence were made out.
Verdict: guilty.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 s4, s33B; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2000 Schedule 3 Part 2; Juries Act 1927 s7(1)(a); Evidence Act 1929 s34P(2), s34P(4), s34R , referred to.
Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34 ; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v R,R and R,LJ [2008] SASC 35 ; Hargraves v R [2011] HCA 44 , applied.

R v TALBOT
[2013] SADC 158
JUDGE SLATTERY
Introduction

The accused, Michael Talbot, is charged with one count on the Information of cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled drug (namely cannabis). The Information reads as follows:-
“INFORMATION
Michael James Talbot is charged with the following Offence
Statement of Offence
Cultivating a Commercial Quantity of Controlled Plants for Sale. (Section 33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Michael James Talbot between the 1^st day of January 2012 and the 8^th day of April 2013 at Tarlee, cultivated a commercial quantity of controlled plants, namely cannabis, intending to sell the plants or their products or believing that another person intended to sell the plants or their products.”
The accused is charged under ss33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The relevant parts of that section read as follows:-
“33B—Cultivation of controlled plants for sale
(2) A person who cultivates a commercial quantity of a controlled plant intending to sell any of them or their products or believing that another person intends to sell any of them or their products is guilty of an offence.
…
(5) If, in any proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), (2) or (3), it is proved that the defendant cultivated a trafficable quantity of a controlled plant, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant had the relevant intention or belief concerning the sale of the plants or their products necessary to constitute the offence.
Maximum penalty: $200 000 or imprisonment for 25 years, or both.”
Under ss4(1) of the Controlled Substances Act a “trafficable quantity of… a controlled plant” is defined as follows:-
“      (a)     ...
(b)     …
(c)     in relation to a controlled plant—
(i)a number of the plant that equals or exceeds the number of plants prescribed as a trafficable quantity for the plant; or
(ii)a weight of the plant that equals or exceeds the weight prescribed as a trafficable quantity for the plant;”
Subsection 4(1) of the Controlled Substances Act also defines “commercial quantity of a… controlled plant” as follows:-
(a)     …
(b)     …
(c)     in relation to a controlled plant—
(i)a number…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Talbot and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] SADC 158
Decision Date: 22 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the accused, Talbot, who was charged with cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis. The matter was heard by a Judge sitting alone, without a jury. Talbot elected to give evidence in his defence. The central legal issue before the court was whether all the elements of the offence of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis had been proven by the prosecution. The court was tasked with determining if the prosecution had established that Talbot had cultivated a commercial quantity of cannabis, and if so, whether this cultivation was of such a scale that it could be considered commercial.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the elements of the offence. It examined the nature and extent of the cannabis cultivation, the scale of the operation, and whether it was of a commercial nature. The court carefully evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented, including any expert testimony. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that Talbot had cultivated a commercial quantity of cannabis, as the scale and nature of the operation met the legal criteria for a commercial cultivation. The court concluded that all elements of the offence were proven, and accordingly, found Talbot guilty.

The court delivered its judgment and found Talbot guilty of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis. The final orders of the court included a determination on the appropriate sentence for the offence, which was not specified in the extract. The court's decision was based on the evidence and legal principles relevant to the cultivation of a commercial quantity of cannabis, ensuring that all elements of the offence had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders