R v Merhi [2020] NSWDC 821

R v Merhi [2020] NSWDC 821

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that manufacturing processes for methylamphetamine, GBL and MDMA occurred in the rear shed and that the accused knowingly took part by providing and permitting use of premises under his management for those processes. The accused's denials and explanations about the lessee, use of the shed, chemical smells, Shellite containers and related matters were rejected as implausible or untruthful, and the circumstantial evidence as a whole excluded reasonable hypotheses inconsistent with guilt on Counts 1 and 3 and the alternative MDMA count. The Crown proved an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine and a large commercial quantity of GBL, but did...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone / Verdicts After Trial
Outcome
Guilty on Count 1 and Count 3; guilty of the alternative count to Count 2; not guilty on Count 4.
Legal Topics
['knowingly Take Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'manufacture of Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Cannabis' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'admissions' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'expert Evidence' 'good Character']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'drug Offences'] ['knowingly Take Part in Manufacture of Prohibited Drug' 'manufacture of Large Commercial Quantity of Prohibited Drug' 'supply of Cannabis' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'admissions' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'expert Evidence' 'good Character']

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 Trial by Judge Alone / Verdicts After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether processes of manufacture of methylamphetamine, MDMA and GBL occurred in the rear shed at 1 Mansfield Road Galston.' 'Whether the accused knowingly took part in manufacture by providing or permitting use of the rear shed for manufacture of prohibited drugs.' 'Whether the Crown proved that the MDMA manufacture involved a large commercial quantity.' 'Whether the Crown proved that the GBL manufacture involved a large commercial quantity.' 'Whether the accused proved on the balance of probabilities that the cannabis leaf in his possession was possessed otherwise than for supply.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that manufacturing processes for methylamphetamine, GBL and MDMA occurred in the rear shed and that the accused knowingly took part by providing and permitting use of premises under his management for those processes. The accused's denials and explanations about the lessee, use of the shed, chemical smells, Shellite containers and related matters were rejected as implausible or untruthful, and the circumstantial evidence as a whole excluded reasonable hypotheses inconsistent with guilt on Counts 1 and 3 and the alternative MDMA count. The Crown proved an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine and a large commercial quantity of GBL, but did...

Court Disposition

Guilty on Count 1 and Count 3; guilty of the alternative count to Count 2; not guilty on Count 4.

Orders

  • ['Verdict of guilty on Count 1: knowingly take part in the manufacture of an indictable quantity of methylamphetamine.' 'Verdict of guilty on the alternative to Count 2: knowingly take part in the manufacture of not less than an indictable quantity of MDMA.' 'Verdict of guilty on Count 3: knowingly take part in the...