R v Trewin - [2018] ACTSC 109

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Trewin
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 109
Hearing Dates:	24 June 2016, 27-29 June 2016; 27 February-2 March 2017; 26‑29 September 2017; 27-November 2017-1 December 2017
DecisionDate:	27 April 2018
Before:	Burns ACJ
Decision:	See [335]-[336]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-Alone Trial – Plea of not guilty – self-representation of accused at trial. EVIDENCE – Pre-Trial Application to Exclude Evidence – photographic evidence of accused’s premises – evidence seized from accused’s property during certain time periods – evidence relevant to application taken on voir dire – evidence subject of the objection admitted. EVIDENCE – Objection to Tender of Evidence Given at Trial – Five documents headed “Registration of Drugs/Suspected Substances Seized or Acquired” – two certificates prepared by the ACT Government Analytical Laboratory – evidence admitted. DRUG OFFENCES – Trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis – presumption of intent or belief about the sale of the drug if trafficable quantity is possessed – whether satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of more than the trafficable quantity of cannabis – whether evidence to displace the statutory presumption that he did so with the intention of selling it – cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis with intention of selling any of the plants or their products – presumption that defendant had the intention or belief about the sale of the plant or its products for the offence if trafficable quantity is cultivated – whether satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis plants – whether satisfied that he did so with the intention of selling the plants or their products or that he believed that someone else intended sell the plants or their products.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 194, 198, 203; div 13.2 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 600, 602, 603, 604, 615, 616, 617 Criminal Code Regulation 2005 (ACT) ss 5, 6; schs 1, 2 Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 138, 165 Public Health Act 1997 (ACT) s 135A Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Simon Trewin (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K MacKenzie (24, 27-29 June 2016; 27 February-2 March 2017) and Mr S McLaughlin (26-29 September 2017; 27-November 2017-1 December 2017) (Crown) Mr J Purnell SC and Ms K Musgrove (24, 27-29 June 2016), Mr R Thomas (27 February-2 March 2017) and self-represented (26-29 September 2017; 27 November 2017-1 December 2017) (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Elizabeth Fleming & Associates Lawyers (24, 27-29 June 2016), Canberra Criminal Lawyers (27 February-2 March 2017) and self-represented (26-29 September 2017; 27-November 2017-1 December 2017) (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 87 of 2015; SCC 88 of 2015

BURNS J:

The accused has been charged with one count of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis; and one count of cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis with intention of selling any of the plants or their products. To these…

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 Trewin

Details

AGLC: R v Trewin [2018] ACTSC 109
Case: [2018] ACTSC 109
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Trewin, was charged with drug trafficking offences following the seizure of cannabis plants and products from his property. Trewin elected to represent himself in the trial before a judge sitting alone. The prosecution applied to exclude certain evidence, including photographs of the premises and items seized during specific time periods. Despite objections, the evidence was admitted following a voir dire. At trial, the prosecution presented various documents and certificates related to the seized drugs, which were also admitted despite objections. Trewin maintained his innocence throughout.

The primary legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trewin possessed and cultivated a trafficable quantity of cannabis with the intent to sell it. The court had to assess whether the statutory presumptions under drug trafficking laws were satisfied by the evidence provided. The court also needed to determine if the admission of the objected evidence was lawful and if it contributed to the prosecution’s case.

The court examined the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence, including the photographs and seized items. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, establishing that Trewin was in possession of a trafficable quantity of cannabis and had cultivated it with the intent to sell. The court found that the statutory presumptions were appropriately applied and that the evidence was both relevant and properly admitted. The court also noted that despite Trewin’s self-representation, the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with legal standards.

The court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the elements of the drug trafficking charges. The objections to the evidence were dismissed as the court found the evidence was properly obtained and relevant. The final orders of the court confirmed the conviction on all counts and set out the sentencing arrangements.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [335]-[336]

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.