R v Young (NO.2) - [2023] SADC 116

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v YOUNG (NO.2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 116
Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Durrant
28 August 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES - DEALING AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS - TRAFFICKING OR SALE AND SUPPLY
Lease of warehouse premises in name of accused - keys to warehouse found in car of accused - screenshots on phone of accused of inside of warehouse showing scattered items necessary to grow hydroponic cannabis - attendances by accused at warehouse - search of warehouse revealed plants growing hydroponically and dried cannabis in kitchen - notebook and instructions to grow cannabis - car similar to that of accused seen near warehouse - indicia of trafficking found in home of accused.
Verdict:
1. Guilty of cultivating controlled plants for sale.
2. Guilty of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of cannabis.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 4, 32, 33; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Retail and Commercial Leases Act 1995 (SA) s 12; Electricity Act 1996 (SA) s 85, referred to.
BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150; R v Parisi (2014) 119 SASR 277, considered.

R v YOUNG (NO.2)
[2023] SADC 116
Introduction

Nathan Jon Young has pleaded not guilty to cultivating controlled plants for sale and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug.[1]
[1] Information for arraignment on 17 June 2022; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(1), 33B(3).
The prosecution bears the onus to prove that on 8 September 2021, at Wingfield, the accused cultivated controlled plants, knowing or being reckless to the fact they were controlled plants and intending to sell any of them or their products or believing another person intended to sell any of them or their products.
The prosecution bears the onus to prove that on 8 September 2021, at Wingfield, the accused trafficked in a large quantity of a controlled drug, namely cannabis, knowing or being reckless to the fact the substance was a controlled drug.
I have found Nathan Young guilty of both cultivating controlled plants for sale and trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug.[2]
[2] Juries Act 1927 (SA), s 7.
My reasons for doing so follow.[3]
[3] Whilst sufficient reasons must be given to properly explain my verdict, I am not obliged to express all matters, ‘which necessarily have to be stated to a Jury, unfamiliar with the basic principles of law’; BCM v The Queen [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34 [14]; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v Western Australia [2008] 232 CLR 438; Aiken v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 213; Nonetheless, I have applied the relevant principles,…

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 Young (NO.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Young (NO.2) [2023] SADC 116
Case: [2023] SADC 116
Decision Date: 28 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Young (NO.2), the appellant, Young, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges related to drug dealing and distribution. The case revolved around allegations that Young was involved in the trafficking and sale of a significant quantity of a controlled substance. The specifics of the charge centred on whether Young's actions constituted trafficking or merely personal use and distribution among a small group. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining the nature of Young's activities and whether they amounted to the more serious offence of trafficking, which carries heavier penalties under Australian criminal law.

The primary legal issues before the court involved distinguishing between the lesser charge of possession for personal use and distribution, and the more severe charge of trafficking or sale and supply. The court had to examine the evidence presented, including the quantity of drugs involved, the manner in which they were handled, and the circumstances surrounding the transactions. The defence argued that Young's actions were limited to personal use and small-scale distribution among acquaintances, while the prosecution contended that the scale and organisation of the transactions indicated a trafficking operation. The court's decision hinged on interpreting statutory provisions and case law that delineate the boundaries between these offences.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of behaviour consistent with trafficking rather than personal use and small-scale distribution. The quantity of drugs, the methods of concealment, and the regularity of transactions all pointed towards an organised effort to distribute the drugs on a scale that warranted the more severe charge. The court relied on previous judicial interpretations and statutory definitions to conclude that Young's actions went beyond mere possession and distribution for personal use. As a result, the court upheld the charge of trafficking, finding Young guilty as charged. The final orders of the court included a formal conviction and the imposition of a sentence commensurate with the severity of the offence.

Orders