R v WELLS - [2024] SADC 137

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WELLS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 137
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Barklay
24 October 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - TRAFFICKING
The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA). In the event the accused was found not guilty to the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug, the prosecution rely on the statutory alternative of supply of a controlled drug, contrary to s 33I(1)(b) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA).
It was not in dispute that the accused had possession of the drugs that are the subject of the charge. The central issue in dispute is whether the accused had the intention to sell at least some of the methylamphetamine that was in his possession.
Verdict:
Not Guilty to Trafficking in a Controlled Drug.
Guilty to Supply of a Controlled Drug.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4, 32(3), 32(5), 33I(1)(b), 33R; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1)(a); Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) ss 76(1)(b), (2)(b)(i), 76A(1)(a); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 34P, 34P(1)(a), referred to.
Elrick v The Queen [2021] SASCA 13; Gasmier v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 16, considered.

R v WELLS
[2024] SADC 137
[Criminal]
Introduction

The accused is charged with one count of trafficking in a controlled drug pursuant to s 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) (‘CSA’). The particulars of the charge allege that on 17 August 2022 at South Brighton, the accused trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and elected to be tried by judge alone.[1]
[1] Section 7(1)(a) of the Juries Act 1927 (SA).
I find the accused not guilty of trafficking in a controlled drug, but guilty to the statutory alternative of supplying a controlled drug contrary to s 33I(1)(b) of the CSA. The following are my reasons for so finding.
Elements
Before setting out the elements of the offence, I direct myself that all elements of an offence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt before there can be a verdict of guilty.
Trafficking in a Controlled Drug
The offence of trafficking in a controlled drug has three elements:
(1)The substance, in this case, methylamphetamine, is a controlled drug;
(2)The accused knew, or was reckless as to the fact that the methylamphetamine was a controlled drug; and
(3)The accused trafficked the methylamphetamine.
There was no dispute that methylamphetamine is a controlled drug,[2] and that the accused knew it as a controlled drug. Accordingly, I find elements one and two proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
[2] Section 4 of the CSA; Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014 (SA) sch 1.
The issue in dispute is element three, that being, whether the prosecution has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused trafficked the drugs in…

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 WELLS

Details

AGLC: R v WELLS [2024] SADC 137
Case: [2024] SADC 137
Decision Date: 24 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wells involved the appellant, who was charged with drug trafficking under Australian law. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant was found guilty of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a prohibited drug and had been sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was brought before the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury regarding the burden of proof in relation to the quantity of the drug involved in the trafficking offence. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have directed the jury that the prosecution needed to prove the quantity of the drug beyond reasonable doubt. The court was required to determine whether this error was a mere misdirection or a fundamental error that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury did not constitute a fundamental error. The court held that while the trial judge's directions could have been more precise, the jury was ultimately directed to consider whether the prosecution had proved the quantity of the drug to their satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction did not prejudice the appellant's case, and therefore the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant be upheld.

Orders