Berton v R [2018] NSWCCA 81

Berton v R [2018] NSWCCA 81

The appeal was dismissed as the Court found it was well open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was engaged with Mr Brand in a joint criminal enterprise to cultivate cannabis, based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence—particularly the applicant's negotiation and payment for the lease of the shed, payment of electricity and phone accounts, ongoing association with Mr Brand, and lack of legitimate use of the premises—making any alternative hypothesis inconsistent with innocence unsustainable.

Parties
Applicant: Olivier Lawrence Berton aka Stephan Berton; Respondent Crown: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conviction Appeal, Cultivation of Cannabis, Joint Criminal Enterprise, Sufficiency of Evidence
Criminal Law Conviction Appeal Cultivation of Cannabis Joint Criminal Enterprise Sufficiency of 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olivier Lawrence Berton aka Stephan Berton

Applicant

Regina

Respondent Crown

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the applicant participated in a joint criminal enterprise to cultivate prohibited cannabis plants

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed as the Court found it was well open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was engaged with Mr Brand in a joint criminal enterprise to cultivate cannabis, based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence—particularly the applicant's negotiation and payment for the lease of the shed, payment of electricity and phone accounts, ongoing association with Mr Brand, and lack of legitimate use of the premises—making any alternative hypothesis inconsistent with innocence unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal be granted.
  • The appeal is dismissed.