R v Ursida (No 2) - [2016] SADC 71

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v URSIDA (No 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 71
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge S David
30 June 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - POSSESSION
Accused found guilty of five counts of trafficking in a controlled drug, one count of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug and two counts of cultivating controlled plants for sale.
Controlled Substances Act 1989 (SA) ss 32(2), 32(3), 33B(3); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34P(2)(a)(b), referred to.
R v Soteriou (2003) 118 SASR 119; R v GNN (2000) 78 SASR 293, considered.

R v URSIDA (No 2)
[2016] SADC 71

The accused was arraigned on the following Information:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Sixth Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Commercial Quantity of a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida on the 25^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, trafficked in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Seventh Count
Statement of Offence
Cultivating Controlled Plants for Sale. (Section 33B(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Antonio Ursida between the 24^th day of June and the 26^th day of July 2014 at Ottoway, cultivated controlled plants, namely cannabis plants, intending to sell any of them or their products or believing that another person intended to sell any of them or their products, and knowing…

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 Ursida (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Ursida (No 2) [2016] SADC 71
Case: [2016] SADC 71
Decision Date: 30 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents were arrested and charged with possession of a commercial quantity of methylamphetamine. They were found guilty by a magistrate and appealed to the District Court, which found them not guilty. The Crown appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, which found that the appeal should be dismissed. The Crown then appealed to the High Court. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge should have excluded the evidence of a police officer who had made the arrest. The respondents argued that the officer was not properly authorised to make the arrest and that the evidence should be excluded under the exclusion of improperly obtained evidence doctrine. The Court found that the officer had acted within his powers. The Court found that the officer had acted within his powers because the legislation did not require that a police officer have a warrant to make an arrest for an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more. The Court held that the officer's evidence was properly before the court, and the conviction was upheld. The Court of Appeal's decision was overturned, and the matter was remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing.

Orders