Citation: R v Haseldon [2012] NSWDC 15
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 February 2012
Judge(s): Murrell SC DCJ
Background
The accused, an invalid pensioner, was charged with six drug offences following a police search of his home on 24 March 2011. Police executing a search warrant found cannabis resin, cannabis leaf, methamphetamine, and five hydroponic cannabis plants on the premises. The accused's wife was overseas at the time; his son, who had a history of amphetamine supply, had vacated the second bedroom only weeks before the search.
The accused pleaded guilty to manufacturing cannabis resin and cultivating five cannabis plants. He contested four charges: deemed supply of cannabis resin (64.8g), deemed supply of cannabis leaf (1044g), deemed supply of methylamphetamine (12.9g), and actual supply of cannabis resin over the preceding year. He elected a judge-alone trial, having received legal advice before doing so.
The accused's central claim across the contested charges was that the cannabis in his bedroom was for his own personal use, a defence available under the deemed supply provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. He cited chronic pain from osteomyelitis and osteoarthritis as the reason for his regular cannabis consumption.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused possessed the cannabis resin and cannabis leaf otherwise than for supply, placing the evidential onus on the accused to prove personal use on the balance of probabilities
- Whether the Crown established possession of the methamphetamine found hidden behind a drawer in the main bedroom
- Whether the Crown proved actual supply of cannabis resin over the period charged, including by way of payment in kind to a person who assisted with manufacturing
- Whether a revised account given at trial, that a manufacturing session was a joint venture returning drugs to their respective owners, was credible and engaged the principle in R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
Decision
Count 2 (Deemed Supply, Cannabis Resin): The accused admitted ownership of the 64.8g of cannabis resin found in his bedroom. His explanation, that the resin represented a three-month personal supply for nightly smoking, was assessed against his overall credibility. The court found him to be an unreliable witness, noting significant inconsistencies between his evidence at trial and the admissions he made during the search and interview. The court was not satisfied he had proved personal possession on the balance of probabilities, and returned a guilty verdict.
Count 3 (Deemed Supply, Cannabis Leaf): The cannabis leaf (totalling 1044g across the bedroom and the drying racks) similarly attracted the deemed supply provisions. The accused acknowledged ownership and again relied on personal use. The court rejected this explanation for the same reasons, noting the quantity and circumstances were inconsistent with his account, and returned a guilty verdict.
Count 4 (Deemed Supply, Methylamphetamine): The methamphetamine was found hidden behind a small dressing table drawer. The accused was not in the room when it was discovered, denied prior knowledge, and expressed shock. The court accepted there was a reasonable possibility the substance belonged to someone else who had access to the premises, including the accused's son, who had a history of drug offending. The court returned a not guilty verdict on this count.
Count 6 (Actual Supply, Cannabis Resin): The Crown alleged the accused supplied cannabis resin over the preceding year by paying a person who assisted with manufacturing with a portion of the finished product. At trial, the accused gave a new account: that the manufacturing was a joint venture in which each party contributed their own cannabis leaf and received their own share back, which would not constitute supply under R v Carey and Alliston v R. The court rejected this version as a fabrication. It found that the earlier admissions, in which the accused described himself as the principal operator who paid his helper in kind with approximately a quarter of the resin, were reliable. That payment in kind constituted actual supply. A guilty verdict followed.
Orders Made
- Count 2 (Supply cannabis resin, deemed supply): Guilty
- Count 3 (Supply cannabis leaf, deemed supply): Guilty
- Count 4 (Supply methylamphetamine, deemed supply): Not guilty
- Count 6 (Supply cannabis resin, actual supply): Guilty
Key Takeaways
- Under the deemed supply provisions of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, once the Crown establishes possession of a trafficable quantity, the onus shifts to the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that possession was otherwise than for supply.
- A personal use defence will be assessed against the totality of evidence, including the accused's consistency across police interview and trial evidence; significant inconsistencies between earlier admissions and later trial accounts weighed heavily against the accused here.
- Paying a manufacturing assistant in kind with a portion of the drug produced can constitute actual supply, provided the arrangement is established by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt.
- The principle in R v Carey, confirmed in Alliston v R, provides that returning drugs to their owner does not constitute supply, but the court found on the facts that the late-emerging joint venture account was fabricated and did not engage that principle.
- Possession of a substance was not established where there was a reasonable possibility it had been placed in the accused's premises by another person with access to the premises and a history of drug offending.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Drug Misuse and trafficking Act 1985, s 29
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases
- R v Carey (1990) 20 NSWLR 292
- Alliston v R [2011] NSWCCA 281