R v Sukkasem [2020] NSWDC 78

R v Sukkasem [2020] NSWDC 78

The evidence of cash found in the bedroom was relevant and had high probative value as circumstantial evidence of drug supply when considered with the scales, resealable bags and other items. The Crown was not precluded from relying on that evidence merely because it also relied on the rebuttable presumption in s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The evidence did not create duplicity or double jeopardy and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding Concerning Drug Supply and Proceeds of Crime Charges / Pre Trial Objection to Evidence Before Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
The accused's application was rejected.
Legal Topics
['drug Offences' 'proceeds of Crime' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'statutory Presumption of Supply' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['drug Offences' 'proceeds of Crime' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'statutory Presumption of Supply' 'circumstantial Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding Concerning Drug Supply and Proceeds of Crime Charges / Pre Trial Objection to Evidence Before Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of $5,630 cash found in the bedroom was relevant and admissible in relation to the drug supply count.' 'Whether reliance on the deeming provision in s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) precluded the Crown from also relying on evidence of cash as circumstantial evidence of supply.' 'Whether admitting the cash evidence on count 1 would create unfair prejudice, duplicity, or double jeopardy concerns.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of cash found in the bedroom was relevant and had high probative value as circumstantial evidence of drug supply when considered with the scales, resealable bags and other items. The Crown was not precluded from relying on that evidence merely because it also relied on the rebuttable presumption in s 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The evidence did not create duplicity or double jeopardy and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The accused's application was rejected.

Orders

  • ["The accused's application is rejected."]