The State of Western Australia v Edwards - [2015] WADC 72

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- EDWARDS [2015] WADC 72

CORAM: STAUDE DCJ

HEARD: 4 JUNE 2015

DELIVERED : 18 JUNE 2015

FILE NO/S: IND 1142 of 2014

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
TODD CLIFFORD EDWARDS

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial of issues - Possession of MDMA with intent to sell or supply - Whether offender intended merely to supply the drug by way of return to its owner

Legislation:

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981

Result:

Offender's contended factual basis for sentencing not proved

Representation:

Counsel:

State of Western Australia : Ms C E Stanyer
Accused: Ms V Amidzic

Solicitors:

State of Western Australia : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Amidzic & Associates

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

The State of Western Australia v Andela [2006] WASCA 77
The State of Western Australia v Thompson [2014] WASCA 108

STAUDE DCJ:

Introduction

The offender, Todd Clifford Edwards, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of one count of having possession of a prohibited drug, namely MDMA (commonly known as ecstasy), with intent to sell or supply it to another. The offence was committed on 31 January 2014 at Innaloo.
Prior to a sentencing hearing on 27 February 2014 the defence lodged written submissions in relation to sentence which contended, as a mitigating circumstance, that the MDMA tablets found in his possession did not belong to him, but to another, and that his only intent was to return them to the owner. The State did not accept this contention and, accordingly, the sentencing hearing was adjourned and the matter listed for a trial of the issue of the offender's intent.

Relevant principles

It is for the sentencing judge to determine the facts of the offending. Facts which tend to aggravate the seriousness of the offence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Those which mitigate must be established on the balance of probabilities.
Dealing in drugs solely or primarily for commercial gain is an aggravating factor. It is not ordinarily a mitigating factor that a drug user has sold a prohibited drug in order to finance their addiction: The State of Western Australia v Andela [2006] WASCA 77 [14] – [15].
In The State of Western Australia v Thompson [2014] WASCA 108, the Court of Appeal held at [26]:
The identification of the offender's precise intention under s 6(1)(a) of the Act is not an essential part of the sentencing process, just as the quantity of the drug in the respondent's possession intended for his own use as distinct from its sale and/or supply is not an essential aspect: Duong v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 110 [6]; Marker v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 55 [114] – [116]. If the evidence does not enable the sentencing judge to make positive findings on these matters, the offender must be sentenced for the offence he committed, which is in terms of 'sale or supply'.
It is for the offender to prove the fact on which he relies in mitigation on the balance of probabilities.

Material facts

The facts read by the prosecutor, with which the defence did not disagree, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 January 2014 the police executed a Firearms Act search warrant at 8 Lilacdale Road, Innaloo, a residence occupied by the offender and others. In the course of the search the offender was seen by the police to have placed something in the front of his shorts. A search of the offender located a money bag in which there was a large clipseal bag containing three smaller bags. These contained lignocaine (not a prohibited drug). Another clipseal bag contained 137 MDMA pills weighing 40.6 grams at 22% purity.
The offender was also found in possession of $5005 in cash which was retrieved by the offender from a safe in the walk-in robe of his bedroom. The safe also contained a set of electronic scales and two clipseal bags containing approximately 0.8 grams of methylamphetamine. The police also located in the walk-in robe a piece of paper with notations of names and amounts of money said to be a 'tick list' that the offender denied was his. In the en suite bathroom of the offender's bedroom the police located a plate containing white powder, straws and a Medicare card bearing the offender's name. Smoking implements were also found.

The offender's contention

In the offender's outline of submissions dated 2 June 2015 the defence indicated at par 2 that the evidence would be to the effect that:
(a)on the proceeding evening, namely Thursday, 30 January 2014 a package was left in the bedside drawer within the offender's bedroom for temporary safe keeping;
(b)the package – presumed by the offender to contain 'drugs' – was left in the drawer with the offender's acquiescence and in his presence;
(c)the offender's understanding at the relevant time was that the owner of the package would retrieve the same at some stage the following day;
(d)the package was not retrieved as expected due to the supervening event of police attendance at the residence the following day, being Friday, 31 January 2014;
(e)whilst police were at the residence the offender retrieved the package understood to contain 'drugs' from the bedside drawer in his bedroom and hid them in his shorts;
(f)his intention throughout with respect to the package was to return or make the same available to its owner.
On this basis it was submitted that the offender's possession of the package containing the MDMA in question was 'in the nature of a temporary bailment accompanied by an intention to return or make the same available to its owner'.

Evidence of offender

Mr Edwards gave evidence that he was a co-tenant of the residence in Innaloo with others and had lived there for a year and a half. On 26 November 2013 he was dismissed from a fly-in/fly-out job as a shot firer. Following his dismissal he made a claim at Fair Work Australia for unfair dismissal which was resolved in his favour.
During the period between his dismissal and the date of the offence he spent time in Victoria. His bank statements (exhibit 1) suggest that he was in Victoria between about 17 December 2013 and 4 January 2014.
The house had four bedrooms. His was upstairs. It had a walk-in robe (otherwise referred to in evidence as a wardrobe and closet) and an en suite bathroom. It opened on to a balcony to which others in the house had access. Apart from himself and his three co-tenants, other persons stayed at the house from time to time. He was aware of seven people that had stayed at the house other than the co‑tenants.
On 31 January 2014, when the police arrived to execute the search warrant, he declared an amount of $5,000 cash. The cash had been kept in a safe in his bedroom. As to the source of the money, he said:
It was actually from a friend 'cos I was – I was actually going through a – I bought a house or block of land up in Alkimos and obviously I wasn't getting any money and I was going through the dismissal claim with Fair Work Australia and I wanted to keep the money up in the bank 'cos I was slowly getting to the point where I needed to – to show some money in my bank to get so I could actually get the loan to continue on.
He borrowed $4,000 from a friend named Brenton. The other $1,000 was money that he had 'like, saved'. He had signed a contract for a house and land package before he was dismissed. He was intending to repay Brenton by giving him rent‑free accommodation when the house was built.
During the search the police located a gun (unconnected to the offender). This caused him to panic. He went upstairs and retrieved a pouch from the safe which he knew had been put there the night before by Matthew Bagot (referred to in the evidence as Bogart). Bagot was a friend of his co‑tenant Matthew Chisholm and had been in the house for a couple of days.
He was asked how he knew that the pouch was in the safe. He said:
I went out for dinner and had a quiet night and I was sort of – 'cos I was in bed obviously, no-one was going to go in there so Matt Bogart knocked on my door and asked to leave something in my room.
This event occurred about half an hour after he went to bed at 9.30 pm. Bagot asked if he could leave his 'stash' in his room and he agreed.
The pouch was located in a combination safe. He and three others had the code. There were scales found in the safe which were not his and had not been used by him. At the time he was using cocaine and ecstasy, and occasionally methylamphetamine. He was aware of the presence of the scales in the safe. They belonged to Matthew Bagot. He said the tick list was not his. It was not his handwriting. He knew some of the names on the list, but not all.
He admitted using drugs in the house. He admitted that the plate, straws and Medicare card found in the search were used by him to ingest cocaine.
As to the source of the drugs he used, Mr Edwards responded to the questions of the court as follows:
I just want to clarify this, you didn't source drugs yourself from outside the house? – No.
So … where did you get the cocaine? – Yeah, well, it was already in the house from people bringing it in.
So it was – to your knowledge it was a drug house? – Yeah, that's what I mean.
Mr Edwards' position was that drugs were given to him in exchange for accommodation.
He was aware that the pouch he took from the safe contained a quantity of ecstasy tablets. He believed it also contained cocaine. His belief was based on what he was told by Bagot. He admitted that he told the police he thought it was cocaine and that he had seen it in one of his drawers. He also said he did not actually see the cocaine, but he saw the pouch and knew what Bagot's 'stash' was.
When asked about what he was referring to by 'drawers' he said that the safe sat on top of drawers in the walk-in robe. He said the drawers he was referring to in his interview with the police were drawers in a bedside table. He said Bagot put the pouch in the safe 'where he put all his stuff'. The drawers of the bedside table had no relevance. Later he said that the bedside table did not have any drawers; there were only drawers in the closet. He agreed that the pouch was not put in a drawer as he said to the police. He said he was mistaken in that respect. He said he knew what was in the pouch because Bagot always carried it around with him.
He said:
When the police were actually going through the house, that sort of – it clicked to me about the night before and then I panicked and that's when I went up to my room and just not long before that, they'd found a gun. He sort of did talk about, you know, being affiliated, all that kind of stuff. I sort of just panicked. I didn't know what to do. I was going to get the drugs and give them back to him.
…
I didn't know if it would come back on me, you know, if I'd have lost them or – because they were in my room that's why I just panicked.
He intended to give the drugs to Bagot and tell him to get out of the house. Mr Edwards denied having any intention to sell or supply the drugs to anyone else. He said he was 'on the verge of my case with Fair Work Australia and I was confident I was going to win' and he had financial support from 'a friend'.
At the time of the search he was about to 'kick out' a couple of people who he thought were dealing in methylamphetamine from the house.
In cross-examination Mr Edwards said that he had known Bagot for two or three days. Bagot was not a friend of his.
He agreed that he told the police in his interview that he had had the safe for three or four days and that there were only two other people who had access to the safe, Brenton and Steve. In evidence he said 'Steve actually didn't have access to the safe, but it was Matt [Bagot]'. He was asked why he gave access to the safe to Bagot. He said:
He was a good friend of Matt Chisholm's which I've known for, like, 10 to 15 years which I haven't actually met this Matt Bogart. He was a friend, it was kind of uncharacteristic to – like he rocked up and he was a lot different to the people we'd actually hang out with. And I took, you know, as knowing Matt that, you know, he was a good lad and I suppose I was just – yeah, I was just clouded by what was going on in the house, I didn't realise and I just went along with it and gave him the benefit of the doubt.
He said he gave Bagot the combination the day he arrived. He was referred to the tick list. He agreed that the word 'gear' could relate to drugs. The word 'safe' appeared on the list. He agreed that all of the money in the safe was his. It was mainly in $50 notes. He agreed that he told the police that he was down to nearly $300 in his bank account. It was put to him that he had more than that, but he maintained that he probably had only $300 in the bank at that time.
He said that he had been awarded $15,000 compensation for his unfair dismissal claim one week before the search, but had not received the payment.
He had paid a developer $6,500 towards his new house, but had not obtained a bank loan. He said he borrowed $4,000 because he was not receiving income.
He admitted that he told the police that he had $12,000 or $13,000 in his bank account when he stopped working and he agreed that he only had $300 in the bank approximately two months later and had received no income in that time.
In relation to the safe he confirmed that he had had it for only three days and that only his money was in it. He agreed that a quantity of clipseal bags were found in a drawer below the safe. He denied they were his. He was taken to part of his police interview where, at the end, he said:
I've introduced a couple of blokes (indistinct). They might able to help each other out, like, (indistinct) that's all I've done.
He was not sure what he meant. He denied that he was referring to introducing people for the purpose of drug transactions. He denied that he had received money for facilitating drug transactions. He denied that the drugs found in his possession were for that purpose.
Mr Edwards was asked questions by the court in relation to a concealed camera that was set up in the walk-in robe and which he had admitted to the police was his. He denied that it was his, but said he was aware of it. He said the safe was not his, but had been bought by Brenton.
Mr Edwards was then re-examined at some length. His re‑examination went well beyond the scope of cross-examination, but was not objected to.
He said that he had taken cocaine on the day of the search prior to the police arriving and some two days before. He thought the pouch contained cocaine because Bagot had given him cocaine from it previously. He said he was taking a lot of cocaine, but only took ecstasy if he went out to a nightclub, perhaps once a week, or once every two weeks. He maintained that he did not buy the safe. He said:
I meant like I'd given a mate money to get one 'cos we were having suspicions of people like stealing in the house and stuff and then that's when they all of a sudden like got the camera set up and they wanted to try to catch someone.
He then said he considered the safe to be his. He accepted that some of what he said to the police in his interview did not make sense. He stopped taking drugs after his arrest. Sometime after the search two men came around looking for Bagot. They assaulted him. They were after money from Bagot.
Mr Edwards said he had, in fact, two bank accounts: a Smart Access account which was for day-to-day use and an Award Saver account which had $5,000 or $6,000 that he was keeping to support his home loan application. The statements of his Smart Access account from July 2013 to February 2014 were tendered as exhibit 1. These showed a balance at 31 January 2014 of about $200. This is the account to which he was referring in the police interview. His Smart Access account revealed that he had received wages of $1,440 on 18 December 2013. The statements also showed that he regularly transferred money from his Award Saver account into his Access account.
Mr Edwards was asked by the court why he had $5,000 in a safe rather than in the bank. He said:
Because then I could keep the money that was in the bank in there and then have that money for spending, like cash so I didn't have to go to the bank if that makes sense.
He said Brenton had given him the $4,000 a week or two before. Mr Edwards was asked by the court about whether he was concerned that someone was stealing from him, as he told the police. He said 'another friend was concerned that another friend was stealing, yes'. It was put to him that he told the police that he set up the camera because someone was stealing money from him. He said:
I didn't put – actually physically put the camera there but I knew of when it was getting put there.
He admitted that his statement to the police in that respect was not true. He was then asked about the electronic scales. He had told the police that he was holding them for someone. In evidence he said:
I wasn't actually holding them, no. One of the boys that were living there that would take me room but have their stuff as well as mine in there.
Further cross-examination was permitted. Mr Edwards said that Bagot was the main concern because no-one really knew him. It was put to him that he had said that he had given him the safe combination because he had become good friends with him. He agreed and said:
I thought he was actually all right at the start and then – till he sort of ruined my life pretty much, like, yeah.
He agreed that he continued to transfer money from his savings account to his Access account after he had received the $4,000. He agreed that on 20 January 2014 he had actually deposited cash. It was put to him that there was no reason not to put the cash in the bank. He said:
Well, having – having that much money to sort of deter the person or also to go up there to try and do it which was sort of, you know, like – yeah, you boast about having a lot of money up in your – in your – in your safe, and it's also going to make people that maybe were stealing from you go up there.
He agreed that he was concerned that someone to whom he had given access to those safe may have been stealing from it.
Amy Suzanne O'Kane was called by the defence. She gave evidence that she was a friend of Mr Edwards. On 30 January 2014 she went to bed with him at his house. When they were in bed a person she knew as Turbo or Matt came into the room and asked to leave something in the room. She believed he was a visitor. She had not had a conversation with him before. She said he knocked on the door, came into the room, and asked to leave something. He did not say what he was leaving. She did not see where the person went within the room. The next day she rose early and left at about 6.30 am.

Prosecution brief

The prosecution brief was tendered without objection and relied upon by the State to rebut the offender's contention. The defence did not require any witnesses to be called. The prosecution brief includes two DVDs, one being the video‑recording of the execution of the search warrant on 31 January 2014, and the other the video record of interview of the offender by the police later that day.
In the search video, the offender, when asked with others who were in the house at the time whether they had anything to declare, said that he had $3,000 in cash in his room. He was permitted to retrieve it and then to put it in his pocket. That cash was given significance by the later discovery in the offender's room of various items associated with drug use. Mr Edwards, when confronted with the ecstasy tablets, said that he was trying to hide them, that he was holding for someone. He denied purchasing them. When asked how he acquired them he said:
Well, I've – well, recently we've had someone here and its' – I – sort of – knew they were up here. And after realising, like, you know (indistinct) I've made, I was trying to get away with having em up here to tell you the truth.

He said he did not acquire them, but he knew they were there. He was shown three clipseal bags containing quantities of white powder which he said was cocaine. (These bags were subsequently found to contain lignocaine.) Again, he said he did not acquire them. As to the safe, he said that he bought it three days before. He agreed that a set of electronic scales was found inside the safe. He denied that they were his and said that he was holding them for someone. He was also shown a couple of small clipseal bags containing what was found to be methylamphetamine. He said that he had a fair idea of what was in the bags, but they were not his. He was then asked about a camera which was set up in the walk‑in robe. He said:
I put it there because someone had been stealing money off me and they knew that I was – you know, had money in there – for a reason and – that's why I wanted to catch who was stealing money off me.
The cash in Mr Edwards' possession was made up of one $100 note, 96 $50 notes, three $20 notes, three $10 notes and one $5 note.
In his police interview, which was commenced at 6.03 pm, Mr Edwards agreed that during the search he was left unattended and in that time went upstairs and retrieved the pouch containing the drugs in question. He said:
I knew, I just knew there was drugs. I knew there was, a couple of people, you know, participating in, ah, a bit of drugs around the house. I went up, up to my room 'cos I got a couple of couples, so I've got people going up and down stairs, people go chill out up there all the time, have a few drinks, you know, play some music. Um, a couple of the boys, you know, couple of the boys (indistinct) pile, a couple of the boys just, like, for you, like, um, you know, say, ecstasy pills or, you know, just hoping there's a few (indistinct) items and some of they won't, you know what I mean?
The offender was questioned about the pouch found in his possession. He identified the contents of three clipseal bags contained within a larger bag inside the pouch as cocaine. He said he first saw it in that package the previous night in one of the drawers in his bedroom. He said he was told someone was leaving something up there. This occurred just before he went to bed at about 9.30.
When asked how he knew it was cocaine he said he had had some of it. He said he had last taken cocaine two days before, but the previous night was the first time he had seen the package. When asked about the ecstasy tablets he said he first saw the bag the previous night at the same time as he saw the bags of cocaine. When asked about the two small bags of methylamphetamine he admitted they were his. He held them for friends who came around. He smoked it occasionally. It was just there for 'party use'.
He told the police that he had been in Victoria from 19 December to 6 January and that one Brenton Ocking had stayed in his room in that time. He said he kicked him out on suspicion of dealing in methylamphetamine. He denied that the smoking implements located in the bathroom drawer were his. He said he had never owned a pipe. However, he admitted that the plate with the powdery substance on it (cocaine), two straws and a Medicare card found in the bathroom were used by him.
He denied that the electronic scales found in the safe were his and denied using them. He had touched them, however, when he picked them up and looked at them. He said that he usually kept cash in the safe. Three people had access to it. He said he bought the safe because he had cash that had been loaned to him because he had been out of work.
He said:
I was actually, I bought that safe 'cos I had some cash up there that was actually lent to me 'cos I've been out of work for so long, and, I gave it to another guy 'cos I had suspicion he was stealing off me (indistinct) and I've helped him, like, I let him move into my house, and, I just want to know if it was him.
He said that he had had the safe for three or four days and that he, Brenton and Steve had access to it. He offered to produce the receipt.
He said he got the cash from a friend, Brenton Aerr, about a week and a half before. He intended to repay the money from his claim payout.
Mr Edwards said that the rest of the money was his; it came from money that he would take out of the bank from time to time. He said that he was running out of money after not having worked for a couple of months and therefore borrowed some money from Brenton. He said he was down to $300 in his bank account. He would have had $12,000 ‑ $13,000 in the bank when he finished work. He agreed that he had spent about $6,000 per month over the previous two months. He did not mention that he had a savings account.
When he was asked as to his intention in relation to the drugs found in his possession he said:
Well, as they weren't, as they weren't mine, I just, yeah, I sort of wanted to, just for certain reasons of the events that happened earlier in the day, like I said, I panicked. I wanted to, wanted (indistinct) I didn't want to, yeah, just wanted them out, out of my room pretty much.
He said he had set the camera up two days ago and was waiting for a certain person to come around. He denied that the tick list was his.
When it was put to him that he had been dealing in drugs he said, 'Well, that's, it definitely looks like that, it'd be stupid not to think that at all'.
He was then asked if there was anything else he wanted to say and he said:
I've introduced a couple of blokes (indistinct). They might be able to help each other out, like (indistinct), that's all I've done, you know what I mean? People (indistinct) may be coming up and down as well. You know, maybe I get some cash for that. Just helping out, and, yeah, that's, that’s all I need to say.

Resolution

Needless to say, the undisputed evidence of the discovery of a significant amount of MDMA on the person of Mr Edwards (20 times the amount giving rise to the presumption), together with $5,000 in cash, almost all in $50 notes, and the location in his bedroom of a safe, a tick list, a set of electronic scales, other drugs, namely methylamphetamine and cocaine, and associated items constitutes a very strong prima facie case that he was personally involved in the commercial distribution of the drug. He conceded as much in his police interview.
The acceptance of the offender's factual contention as to the circumstances of his possession of the tablets and his precise intention in relation to them depends upon the court's assessment of the credibility of his evidence. Having admitted the offence, he bears the onus of satisfying the court on the balance of probabilities that he did not intend to do more, by way of supply, than return the ecstasy tablets to the person who, on his evidence, put them in the safe in his bedroom.
Overall, I found Mr Edwards to be a most unsatisfactory witness. Much of what he said to the police he contradicted in his evidence. For example, in relation to:
1.The purchase of the safe and the persons who had access to it, telling police that he bought the safe and could produce a receipt, and saying in evidence that it was bought by another, and again, saying to police that he, Steve and Brenton had the combination, and in evidence that not Steve, but Bagot had access;
2.The camera in his walk-in robe, which he told police he had set up in order to catch a thief, and which he said in evidence was set up by another;
3.The retrieval of the ecstasy tablets from the safe, rather than a bedside table drawer, as he clearly instructed his solicitor, based on the questions asked in evidence in chief and the defence written submissions;
4.His relationship with Bagot, to whom he gave access to the safe on the day he met him because he was a friend of Chisholm, gave him cocaine and got on with, and who he allowed to come into his room at night to put his 'stash' in it, but who he also, according to his evidence in cross‑examination, suspected of stealing; and
5.Repaying the money he said he borrowed from Brenton Aerr, telling police he intended to repay it from his unfair dismissal payout, and saying in evidence that he proposed to give him rent‑free accommodation.
The giving of inconsistent accounts to the police and the court renders his evidence unreliable.
By his own admission, Mr Edwards was a user of ecstasy. Prohibited drugs were also used by others in the house. Mr Edwards was provided with drugs, as he admitted, and cash, as I find on the basis of his admission to the police, in association with drug‑taking activities. In that respect I note that Mr Edwards' inability to say in evidence what he meant, if not the natural and ordinary meaning of his words, reflected on his overall credibility and is consistent with my other observations. It is clear from Mr Edwards' admissions that his was a house in which drug dealing occurred.
Mr Edwards would have the court accept that he had no proprietary interest in the tablets found in his possession. He would also have the court accept that an innocent explanation exists for the possession by him of a significant sum of cash located in the very safe from which he took the drugs in order to avoid their discovery by the police.
No evidence has been called to support Mr Edwards' account except for that of Ms O'Kane. She may well, from whatever viewpoint she had, have noticed someone come into the room the previous night, but her evidence is too lacking in detail and content to carry much weight. The fact that someone left something in Mr Edwards' bedroom does not compel the acceptance of his explanation of his possession of the tablets, or make it more likely than not to be true. There was no evidence in the form of bank statements in respect of his second bank account. There was no evidence called from the person who purportedly lent him $4,000. There was no objective evidence of his house and land package purchase or any related bank dealings.
I do not accept Mr Edwards' evidence as to his possession of almost exactly $5,000 in cash, mainly in $50 notes. His bank records show that during the period he was unemployed, being two months to the date of the search, he continued to draw on another bank account, making transfers as he had done throughout the previous six months, and to draw cash at ATMs. His explanation that he borrowed money in order to preserve his savings makes no sense in the circumstances; nor does his evidence that he effectively saved an additional $1,000 from cash withdrawn from his bank account from time to time.
Mr Edwards suggested to the police that his bank account had reduced from $12,000 ‑ $13,000 to $300 in two months (disclosing only one account). In cross-examination he maintained that he had in fact spent that amount of money in that time. Only in re‑examination was he asked how many accounts he had. The statements of his Smart Access account tendered in re-examination (exhibit 1) reveal that over a period of seven months the balance was usually only a few hundred dollars. The statements show that wages were credited to that account and that regular transfers were made from it to another account (number ending 1739). Funds were also transferred back from that account to the Smart Access account. Mr Edwards' answers to questions by the police and the prosecutor were misleading in that respect.
On his evidence, as at 31 January 2014, he had $1,000 in cash of his own, $200 in his Smart Access account, and $5,000 - $6,000 in his Award Saver account. On his evidence his unfair dismissal claim had been determined. (He received a $10,275.00 payment from his former employer on 5 February 2014.) It was unnecessary to borrow money for the reason he gave and it made no sense, in any event, to hold that money in cash in a safe to which, according to him, others had access, when it could have been safely deposited. The existence of a surveillance camera in the walk-in robe is consistent with Mr Edwards having given others access to the safe. There was no‑one else's money kept in the safe. It is clear that it was used to Mr Edwards' knowledge to hold illicit drugs over which he had control.
From the items found by the police it is clear that Mr Edwards' room was used as a drug repository. Indeed, Mr Edwards' position is taken on that basis. Yet, the fact is neither exculpatory, nor mitigatory. On his evidence he had occupied the house for over one and a half years. Whilst his room may have been used by others when he was not there, he had been living continuously in the house from early January when he returned from Victoria, a period of over three weeks prior to the search.
Mr Edwards' evidence and the evidence as a whole does not persuade the court, even to the civil standard of proof, that his involvement with the drugs in question was limited to merely holding drugs for another. His explanation is implausible. It lacks cogency. In the circumstances his factual contention is not accepted.
As to the circumstances of his possession of the drugs, I find that he retrieved from the safe in his bedroom a pouch containing ecstasy tablets to avoid incrimination. It is improbable that he would have placed himself at risk of being found in possession if he had no interest in the tablets. On the evidence he had no reason to protect any other house occupant or visitor, if he were not complicit with them in drug dealing.
Having rejected Mr Edwards' account the court is able to characterise his possession of the ecstasy tablets in the context of the drug-using circle centred in his residence as Innaloo. It involved the acquisition of substantial amounts of MDMA capable of being on‑sold for profit. The offender was engaged directly or indirectly, most likely with another, in low level dealing. As noted, precise findings in this regard are not required to be made: The State of Western Australia v Thompson [26].
I reject the offender's contention that he had no intention to distribute the ecstasy tablets and that he had possession of them only for the purpose of returning them to another. He is to be sentenced on the basis that he was involved in the commercial distribution of MDMA, albeit at a relatively low level in the hierarchy of drug dealing. Of that fact, on all the evidence, the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.