R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400

R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400

The appellant had physical control or custody of the heroin because he had driven the locked car to the place where it was found and held the keys, but the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the heroin was in the car. Given his daughter's drug involvement, use of the car, access to other keys and possessions in the car, the telephone conversation was too obscure and the appellant's lies could reasonably have been told for another reason. The conviction based on possession for deemed supply was therefore unsafe and the appeal was upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld and conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
['deemed Supply of Heroin' 'possession of Prohibited Drug' 'knowledge' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'unreasonable Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['deemed Supply of Heroin' 'possession of Prohibited Drug' 'knowledge' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'unreasonable Verdict']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant was in possession of the heroin found in a locked car for the purposes of deemed supply under s 29 of the Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the heroin was in the car.' "Whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable having regard to the evidence." "Whether the trial judge's directions on possession and lies were inadequate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had physical control or custody of the heroin because he had driven the locked car to the place where it was found and held the keys, but the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he knew the heroin was in the car. Given his daughter's drug involvement, use of the car, access to other keys and possessions in the car, the telephone conversation was too obscure and the appellant's lies could reasonably have been told for another reason. The conviction based on possession for deemed supply was therefore unsafe and the appeal was upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld and conviction quashed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal upheld.' 'Conviction quashed.']