R v Tamara Linda Terrens

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tamara Linda TERRENS [2013] NSWDC 162
Hearing dates:26, 27 August 2013
Decision date: 28 August 2013
Before: Judge A Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:

On Count 1 in the Indictment, that:on 31 July 2012, at Jannali, in the state of New South Wales, the accused supplied a prohibited drug, namely 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug. I find the accused Tamara Linda Terrens - Guilty.

Catchwords: 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine, supply, large commercial quantity, not less than the commercial quantity, Judge Alone trial
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438
Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281
R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Greatorex (1994) 74 A Crim R 496
He Kaw The v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Zoneff V The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Tamara Linda TERRENS (Accused)
Representation: Ms C Dodds (DPP)
Mr K Averre (for the Accused)
Ms G Rowe (DPP)
Ms M Lim (LegalAid NSW) (for the accused)
File Number(s):2012/238777

Judgment

A Judge Alone Trial

  1. On 26 August 2013 Tamara Terrens, the accused, pleaded not guilty to a charge that on 31 August 2012 she supplied not less than the large commercial quantity of 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine. She also said she was not guilty of an alternative charge that she supplied not less than the commercial quantity of 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine.

  1. A proper election was made for a trial by judge alone. The Crown agreed to that course. The matter then proceeded before me on the 26 and 27 August 2013: s 133 Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

  1. A judge sitting alone to try a serious matter must include in his or her judgment the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which they relied. The crucial arguments of the parties must be summarised. The judge must formulate the issues for decision and resolve any issues of law and fact that need to be determined: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438, at [85], Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 259.

  1. A judge may make any finding that could have been made by a jury. If any warnings are required the judge is to take the warnings into account. In doing so, a judge must properly formulate the warnings and principles applied but also expose his or her reasoning process, linking the relevant legal principles with findings of fact so as to justify those findings and the ultimate verdict reached: see ss 132, 132A and 133 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 and Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250.

Supply of prohibited…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Tamara Linda Terrens 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] NSWDC 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Tamara Linda Terrens, the defendant was charged with the supply of a prohibited drug, 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine, in a quantity not less than the large commercial quantity, as defined under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The case was heard and determined by a judge alone in the Local Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of supply and whether the quantity of the drug met the threshold for the large commercial quantity.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of the drug with the intent to supply, and whether the quantity of the drug constituted not less than the large commercial quantity. The court had to consider the evidence of the circumstances of the discovery of the drugs, including their location, packaging, and quantity, as well as the deeming provisions under section 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The defendant maintained that the drugs were for her personal use and that she had no knowledge of their presence or quantity.

The court found that the Crown had successfully discharged its onus of proving each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The analysis of the drugs confirmed a significant quantity, and the circumstances of their discovery, including the packaging and the presence of money and communication devices, supported the inference that the drugs were intended for supply. The court noted that the accused had no reasonable explanation for the presence of the drugs or the other items found in her possession. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty on the charge of supplying a prohibited drug in a large commercial quantity.

The court ordered that Tamara Linda Terrens be found guilty on Count 1 of the indictment for supplying 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine in a quantity not less than the large commercial quantity, as defined under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The court's decision was based on the evidence and the applicable legal standards, affirming the prosecution's case and rejecting the defence's submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

On Count 1 in the Indictment, that:on 31 July 2012, at Jannali, in the state of New South Wales, the accused supplied a prohibited drug, namely 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine which was not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that drug. I find the accused Tamara Linda Terrens - Guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Most of the facts were either agreed or admitted pursuant to section 191 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) or were not in serious dispute. After executing a lawful search warrant on her home in Jannali police found in the accused's bedroom a quantity of pills that were on later analysis found to be 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine. The pills were found in a number of discrete locations in the room: Also found were a sum of money $1165, three sets of scales and two black Samsung mobile telephones one containing a Vodafone SIM. In the second bedroom of the house occupied by the accused's sons was a carpet python in a glass enclosure. The tablets in the re-sealable plastic bags in the black handbag of the accused and the tablets in the re-sealable plastic "coin" bag on the accused's bed and were analysed and found to contain 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine with a combined weight of 82.21 grams and a purity of 2.0%. The tablets contained within the re-sealable bags in the "snake book" were analysed and found to contain 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine with a combined weight of 75.6.grams and a purity of 1.5%. There were 555 tablets in total: 283 tablets located in the handbag of the accused and in the "coin" bag on the accused's bed and 272 tablets in the imitation book. The combined weight of all the 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine in the accused's bedroom was 157.81 grams. The Crown case is that all the 4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine tablets were possessed for the purpose of supply. They rely on all the circumstances relating to where they were found, what was found with them and the nature, quantity and packaging of the drugs themselves. In addition they rely on the deeming provisions in s 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act. The alternative charge is put forward against the possibility that I may not find the accused was in possession of the contents of the imitation book at all, in the sense she did not have the requisite knowledge or even if she did she did not have possession for the purpose of supply: see Carey v R. They further submit that in respect of both counts on the indictment, the accused knew the quantity of the drugs but even if she had a belief falling short of such actual knowledge she was aware that there was a real or significant chance, that the drug being supplied was in an amount not less than the large commercial quantity in respect of count 1 and, alternatively, not less than the commercial quantity in respect of count 2. The accused gave evidence. She does not dispute that the 283 tablets found in the plastic bags in her handbag or on her bed were hers but says she had them solely for her own use. While she acknowledges the "snake book" was in her bedroom, she says it was left there by a friend "Charlie", who was to collect it. She said she was unaware of its contents and did not know or suspect that it may have contained illicit drugs. Onus: The most important direction in any criminal trial is this: the prosecution must prove each critical element of a charge beyond reasonable doubt. Subject to s 29 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, the accused has no onus of proving anything. I do not act on suspicion. I do not act on what I believe might probably be the case. I can only return a guilty verdict if I have no reasonable doubt the Crown has proved its case. If the Crown fails to meet that high onus or if I have doubts about their case the accused must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt and I must return verdicts of not guilty.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.