R v Galway [2014] NSWDC 1

R v Galway [2014] NSWDC 1

The accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have manufactured a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine or exposed a child to the process, nor to have possessed pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture, nor to have supplied ketamine, nor to have manufactured drugs at Leppington. However, the accused knowingly took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine at Grose Wold by permitting his shed to be used for a step in the process, with knowledge that the extraction was part of manufacturing methylamphetamine.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone
Outcome
Accused convicted only on statutory alternative (knowingly took part in manufacture of methylamphetamine); acquitted on other counts.
Legal Topics
['manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'possession of Precursor Chemicals' 'deemed Supply' 'evidence of Accomplices' 'alternative Statutory Counts']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['manufacture of Prohibited Drugs' 'supply of Prohibited Drugs' 'possession of Precursor Chemicals' 'deemed Supply' 'evidence of Accomplices' 'alternative Statutory Counts']

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 / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused manufactured a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine' 'Whether the accused knowingly took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine' 'Whether a child was exposed to the manufacturing process' 'Whether the accused possessed a prescribed precursor with intent to manufacture methylamphetamine' 'Whether the accused supplied a commercial quantity of ketamine' 'Whether the accused was involved in the manufacture of drugs at a separate location (Leppington)']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have manufactured a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine or exposed a child to the process, nor to have possessed pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture, nor to have supplied ketamine, nor to have manufactured drugs at Leppington. However, the accused knowingly took part in the manufacture of methylamphetamine at Grose Wold by permitting his shed to be used for a step in the process, with knowledge that the extraction was part of manufacturing methylamphetamine.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted only on statutory alternative (knowingly took part in manufacture of methylamphetamine); acquitted on other counts.

Orders

  • ['Count 1: Not guilty' 'Count 1A: Not guilty' 'Alternative statutory count (s 24(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act): Guilty' 'Count 4: Not guilty' 'Count 5: Not guilty' 'Count 6: Not guilty' 'Count 6A: Not guilty' 'Count 7: Not guilty' 'Count 7A: Not guilty']