R v Watts & Golja (No 2) - [2016] SADC 113

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WATTS & GOLJA (No 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 113
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Costello
21 September 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - RECEIVING AND POSSESSION OF PROPERTY STOLEN OR REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF BEING STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED - POSSESSION OF PROPERTY STOLEN OR SUSPECTED TO BE STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED - SUSPECTED OR REASONABLY SUSPECTED OR SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED - BASIS OF SUSPICION
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone - accused jointly charged with offences of Trafficking in a Controlled Drug and Unlawful Possession.
VERDICTS - Trafficking in A Controlled Drug:
As to accused Watts - not guilty.
As to accused Golja - guilty.
VERDICTS - Unlawful Possession:
As to accused Watts - not guilty.
As to accused Golja - guilty.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 ss 4, 32, reg 5, Sch 1, Pt 2; Summary Offences Act 1953 s 41 ; Juries Act 1927 s 7(1); Evidence Act 1929 s 34P; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2000 (SA) sch 1; District Court Criminal Rules 2014 r 49(1), referred to.
R v Watts & Golja [2016] SADC 12; R v Sweeny [2008] SASC 300; R v Soteriou [2013] SASCFC 114; Tepper v Kelly (1987) 45 SASR 340; R v Perfili [2006] SASC 321; R v Joyce [2014] SADC 125; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495; R v Chamberlain (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; R v Micallef [2002] NSWCCA 480; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; R v Bac Nam Nguyen (No 2) [2016] SADC 44, considered.

R v WATTS & GOLJA (No 2)
[2016] SADC 113

This is a trial by judge alone. The accused, Adam Matthew Watts (‘Watts’) and Bernadette Kay Golja (‘Golja’) was originally charged on Information dated 16 February 2015 as follows:
Adam Matthew Watts is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984).
Particulars of Offence
Adam Matthew Watts on the 17^th day of June 2014 at Manningham, 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
Adam Matthew Watts on the 17^th day of June 2014 at Manningham, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (also known as MDMA or Ecstasy), knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Possessing a Firearm Without a…

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 Watts & Golja (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: [2016] SADC 113
Decision Date: 21 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Watts & Golja (No 2), the defendants were charged with drug trafficking offences under the Criminal Code. The court heard that the defendants were involved in a large-scale operation that involved the importation and distribution of a significant quantity of a controlled drug. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the primary focus being on the sufficiency of the evidence presented against the accused to establish their involvement in the alleged drug trafficking activities.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code concerning drug trafficking. The court had to determine whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish the defendants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This included examining the credibility of witnesses, the chain of custody of the seized drugs, and the defendants' roles within the alleged trafficking operation.

The court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the defendants' involvement in the drug trafficking activities beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge found that there were significant gaps and inconsistencies in the testimony of the key witnesses, which undermined the prosecution's case. Additionally, the court noted that there was no direct evidence linking the defendants to the drug trafficking operation. As a result, the court acquitted both defendants on the drug trafficking charges.

The court ordered the immediate release of both defendants from custody, as they had already served their remand period. The prosecution was also directed to pay the defendants' legal costs. This decision underscores the importance of the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and highlights the need for reliable and consistent evidence in drug trafficking cases.

Orders