R v Haseldon [2012] NSWDC 15

R v Haseldon [2012] NSWDC 15

The Crown proved possession of trafficable quantities of cannabis resin and cannabis leaf, and the accused failed to prove that the relevant cannabis was possessed otherwise than for supply. The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the concealed methylamphetamine. The accused's admissions on 24 March 2011 reliably proved that he supplied cannabis resin to an unnamed man, and his contrary trial evidence was rejected as a fabrication.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Drug Offences / Judge Alone Trial Verdicts
Outcome
Count 2 guilty; Count 3 guilty; Count 4 not guilty; Count 6 guilty.
Legal Topics
['judge Alone Trial' 'drug Supply' 'deemed Supply' 'actual Supply' 'possession' 'cannabis Resin' 'cannabis Leaf' 'methylamphetamine']
['criminal Law'] ['judge Alone Trial' 'drug Supply' 'deemed Supply' 'actual Supply' 'possession' 'cannabis Resin' 'cannabis Leaf' 'methylamphetamine']

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 Prosecution for Drug Offences / Judge Alone Trial Verdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused possessed a trafficable quantity of cannabis resin otherwise than for supply.' 'Whether the accused possessed a trafficable quantity of cannabis leaf otherwise than for supply.' 'Whether the accused knowingly possessed the methylamphetamine found concealed behind a drawer in his bedroom.' 'Whether the accused actually supplied cannabis resin to an unnamed man who assisted in manufacturing it.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved possession of trafficable quantities of cannabis resin and cannabis leaf, and the accused failed to prove that the relevant cannabis was possessed otherwise than for supply. The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the concealed methylamphetamine. The accused's admissions on 24 March 2011 reliably proved that he supplied cannabis resin to an unnamed man, and his contrary trial evidence was rejected as a fabrication.

Court Disposition

Count 2 guilty; Count 3 guilty; Count 4 not guilty; Count 6 guilty.

Orders

  • ['Count 2 (Supply cannabis resin): Guilty.' 'Count 3 (Supply cannabis leaf): Guilty.' 'Count 4 (Supply methylamphetamine): Not guilty.' 'Count 6 (Supply cannabis resin): Guilty.']