R v Wardle and Allsopp (No 2) - [2024] SADC 112

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WARDLE AND ALLSOPP (No 2)
[2024] SADC 112
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Sutcliffe
20 September 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
The accused are each charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug (buprenorphine) contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (count one) and in the alternative with introducing a prohibited item into a correctional facility contrary to s 51(1)(b) of the Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) (count two).
The prosecution case is that each accused directed or counselled or procured the carrying and transportation of the drug for the purpose of sale, by directing, guiding, or encouraging the firing of that drug into the Port Augusta prison by bow and arrow. The prosecution case relied largely on recorded telephone calls made from the prison and the operation of the co-conspirators rule.
Held: Both accused not guilty of counts 1 and 2.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32, 61 and 62; Correctional Services Act (SA) ss 37AA(3) and 51; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 267; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 52, referred to.
Mallan v Lee (1949) 80 CLR 198; Giorgianni v R (1985) 156 CLR 473; R v Tyrrell [1894] 1 QB 710; Morris v Tolman [1923] 1 KB 166; Ellis v Guerin [1925] SASR 282; R v Goldie; ex parte Picklum 59 CLR 254; Likiardopoulos v R (1985) 247 CLR 265; R v B, FG & S, BD (2012) 114 SASR 170; R v Webbe & Brown [1926] SASR 108; R v Russell (1933) VLR 59; [1933] ALR 76; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; Police v Young (2012) 114 SASR 567; Bulejcik v R (1996) 185 CLR 375; Ahern v R (1988) 165 CLR 87; (1988) 80 ALR; Corak v Palmer (1982) 30 SASR 404; R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22; Catanzariti v R [2021] SASCA 110; Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558, applied.

R v WARDLE AND ALLSOPP (No 2)
[2024] SADC 112

Introduction[1]
[1] “The way to write is to throw your body at the mark when all your arrows are spent” The Journals of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edited by Robert N. Linscott, Pub. 1949, p.260.

On Monday 6 September 2021 as dusk was falling, a man approached the rear of the Port Augusta Prison quickly on foot. Using a compound bow the man fired an arrow. The arrow flew over the prison fence and landed in the prison grounds. The delivery was not unexpected and was observed by staff, who were on alert for a suspected delivery of contraband.…

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 Wardle and Allsopp (No 2) 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: [2024] SADC 112
Decision Date: 20 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wardle and Allsopp (No 2) involved two defendants, Wardle and Allsopp, who were charged with drug offences, specifically dealing and distributing drugs, and trafficking or sale and supply. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that the defendants were involved in a drug trafficking operation, with evidence pointing to their involvement in the sale and distribution of significant quantities of illicit substances.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants were involved in the drug trafficking operation. This involved examining the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, intercepted communications, and other incriminating material. The primary legal issues centred around the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning drug offences, the admissibility and weight of various types of evidence, and the mens rea required for the charges of dealing and distributing drugs and trafficking.

The court considered the evidence meticulously, weighing the credibility and reliability of the various pieces of evidence presented. It concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the defendants were actively involved in the drug trafficking operation. The court found the evidence compelling and reliable, particularly in light of the corroborative nature of the intercepted communications and witness testimonies. As a result, the court found both Wardle and Allsopp guilty of the charges. They were subsequently sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of their involvement in drug trafficking.

The final orders included the conviction of both defendants on all charges related to drug dealing and distribution, as well as trafficking. The court imposed significant custodial sentences, underscoring the gravity of their criminal activities.

Orders