R v Wilson - [2002] NSWCCA 288

CITATION: R v WILSON [2002] NSWCCA 288

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60091/02

HEARING DATE(S): 9 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2002

PARTIES :

Appellant - Scott Geoffrey Wilson
Respondent - Crown

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Bell J at 68; Carruthers AJ at 69

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/41/0110

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL : J I Doris - Appellant
E A Wilkins - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Russell McLelland Brown - Appellant
S E O'Connor - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL APPEAL - appeal from conviction - Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, s23(1)(a), s24 - premises used for purpose of manufacturing prohibited drug - cultivation of cannabis plants - Circumstantial evidence - reasonable hypothesis - whether conviction was unsafe/unsatisfactory

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

60091/02
SHELLER JA
BELL J
CARRUTHERS AJ

R v Scott Geoffrey WILSON

The appellant was charged under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (the Act), first, that he did knowingly take part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug methylamphetamine (in contravention of s24 of the Act) and secondly that he did cultivate cannabis plants (in contravention of s23(1)(a) of the Act). The appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges, but was convicted on both by Judge Goldring without a jury.

The appellant appealed from his conviction on each count.

The appellant was arrested after the execution of two search warrants on his premises which discovered items which had been used in a step in the manufacture of methylamphetamine. Also discovered were 87 cannabis plants.

While the Crown case depended largely on circumstantial evidence, the trial Judge was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew that his premises were being used for the purpose of manufacturing a prohibited drug. The trial Judge was unwilling to infer that the appellant was actually participating in the manufacture of amphetamines on his premises. As to the second charge, the trial Judge was satisfied that the appellant had nurtured or tended the cannabis plants found in his premises.

At trial the appellant did not give evidence or call any evidence, but an alternative hypothesis to explain the presence of the items was advanced on his behalf. The appellant claimed that the step in manufacture took place off the appellant's premises and the premises were used merely to store the materials and implements of manufacture.

It was argued on appeal that the trial Judge had erred by regarding it as appropriate to discuss alternative reasonable hypotheses inconsistent with the appellant's guilt of the offences charged. The appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. It was further argued that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and lead to a miscarriage of justice.

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2002] NSWCCA 288
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 288
Decision Date: 23 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a conviction under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, specifically sections 23(1)(a) and 24. The respondent, Wilson, had been found guilty of using premises for the purpose of manufacturing a prohibited drug, in this case, cannabis. The appeal centred on the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence used to establish the offence.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the premises were used for manufacturing cannabis, and if the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court needed to assess the reliability of the circumstantial evidence and whether it could support a reasonable hypothesis that Wilson was involved in the cultivation of cannabis on the premises.

The court determined that the circumstantial evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence included the discovery of cannabis plants, equipment used for cultivation, and Wilson's control over the premises. The court found that these factors, combined with Wilson's unexplained presence at the premises and his knowledge of the cannabis cultivation, formed a reasonable hypothesis that he was involved in the manufacturing process. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, finding it to be safe and satisfactory based on the evidence presented.

Orders