R v Vannini - [2014] SADC 65

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v VANNINI
[2014] SADC 65
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Beazley
30 April 2014
CRIMINAL LAW
DISPUTED FACTS
Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis; one count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis and four counts of simple possession of controlled drugs - the police had located cash in the sum of $59,000 at the defendant's house - dispute as to whether the cash or any of it was unlawfully obtained by the defendant.
Held: Some of the cash was obtained by the defendant from a previous cultivation. Court unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, what proportion of the cash was unlawfully obtained. Discussion as to factual basis of the sentence.
Summary Offences Act (1953) s 41; Criminal Assets Confiscation Act (2005) s 47; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act (1988) s 6, referred to.
R v Kreutzer [2013] 118 SASR 211 at [27]-[32]; Gas v R [2004] 217 CLR 198 at [30]; R v Anderson [1973] 177 CLR 520; R v Ninnes (2007) 96 SASR 443; R v Perfili (2006) 95 SASR 560, considered.

R v VANNINI
[2014] SADC 65
Disputed Facts Hearing
Introduction

Maride Anthony Vannini (the defendant), and Grace Maria Catanzariti were jointly charged on Information dated 22 April 2013 with six drug offences which had allegedly occurred on 9 June 2011.
On 12 February 2014, the day fixed for trial, Mr Vannini was arraigned and pleaded guilty to six offences as appear hereafter. Upon the entry of those pleas, a nolle prosequi was entered in respect of Ms Catanzariti on each of the counts on the Information.
The parties then announced that there was a dispute as to the status of cash in the sum of $59,000 located by the police at the defendant’s home, and seized by them.
The respective counts to which the defendant pleaded guilty are as follows:
·One count of cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant for sale contrary to s 33B(2) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (the Act).
·One count of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug contrary to s 32(1) of the Act.
·Four counts of simple possession of a controlled drug, each involving small quantities of:
·       methamphetamine;
·       cocaine;
·       1-Benzylpiperazine (BZP);
·       3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).
Background
On 9 June 2011 police attended at the defendant’s residential premises at MacDonald Park. They located, in his bedroom, a jewellery box which contained, inter alia, small quantities of methylamphetamine, cocaine, BSP and MDMA.
They then observed two sheds on the property, in which had been constructed, three “grow rooms” containing hydroponic equipment. Each room was set up with high powered lights, automatic watering and filtering system, transformers, light shades and a carbon filter.
In one of those rooms they discovered some 37 cannabis seedlings, each of which was approximately 10 to 50 centimetres in height. They subsequently discovered approximately 9.4 kilograms of female head cannabis…

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 Vannini

Details

AGLC: R v Vannini [2014] SADC 65
Case: [2014] SADC 65
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of South Australia, the defendant, Maride Anthony Vannini, pleaded guilty to cultivating a commercial quantity of a controlled plant, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, and four counts of simple possession of controlled drugs. The case involved a dispute as to whether the cash, in the sum of $59,000, located at the defendant's house was obtained unlawfully. The prosecution argued that the cash was the proceeds of the defendant's prior cultivation and trafficking of cannabis, while the defendant claimed the money was from loans and other ventures, including dog breeding and jewellery interests. The court determined that some of the cash was obtained through the defendant's previous cultivation, but could not ascertain, beyond reasonable doubt, the exact proportion of the cash that was unlawfully obtained. The defendant was sentenced based on the cannabis offences being for commercial purposes.

Orders