Julius Yates V Regina [2016] NSWDC 326

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Julius Yates V Regina [2016] NSWDC 326 Hearing dates: 3 November 2016 Date of orders: 24 November 2016 Decision date: 24 November 2016 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Judge AC Scotting Decision: Appeal against conviction is dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – drugs – supply prohibited drug APPEAL – appeal against conviction OTHER – definition of supply – take part in supply prohibited drug Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 s.18(1) Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 ss. 3, 6, 25(1) Cases Cited: Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137 Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Director of Public Prosecutions (SA) Reference no 2 of 1995 65 SASR 508 Deng v R (1996) 91 A Crm R 80 R v Zaiter [2005] NSWCCA 61 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Julius yates (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Mr Gould (Appellant) C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2015/00271970

Judgment 1. Julius Yates (the appellant) appeals against a conviction entered by her Honour Magistrate McIntyre at Downing Centre Local Court on 11 May 2016. On that day the appellant was convicted of an offence of knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited drug contrary to section 25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. 2. On 27 August 2015 the appellant was working as a bar attendant at the Lobo Plantation, licensed premises situated at 209 Clarence Street, Sydney (the premises). At about 6pm 2 undercover police officers codenamed "Natasha" and "Layla" entered the premises intending to purchase prohibited drugs pursuant to a Controlled Operation Authority. 3. At about 7pm Layla went to the entrance to the premises and spoke to a security guard named Jay (the security guard). At that time Natasha had a conversation with the appellant that was recorded in Natasha's statement as follows: Appellant: Do you want another drink? Natasha: Nah, my friend's upstairs trying to get us some stuff. Appellant: Some special stuff? Natasha: Yeah, are you into the special stuff? Appellant: Yeah. Natasha: Do you know anyone that can help us out 'cause I think my friend is having trouble. Appellant: I know someone that can probably help you out, he didn't come through last week, but he can probably sort you out. 1. Layla returned and showed the screen of her mobile phone to Natasha and the appellant. Layla had been given a mobile telephone number by the security guard at the entrance to the premises, stored under the contact "A1 Taxis" and recording the number 0451 102 171 (the mobile number). The appellant looked at it. 2. Layla then had a conversation with the appellant in the presence of Natasha that was recorded in both of their statements as follows: Layla: Is this your guy? Appellant: Oh yeah that's him. I'm in a bit of trouble with him at the moment. Layla: Oh I just got his number off Jay upstairs. I spoke with him, he said he was coming by and could help us out, he said to ask Joe behind the bar for prices. Is that you? Appellant: Yeah, that's me. Layla: How much are we looking at for a gram? Appellant: It's $300 for 1 Layla: OK, cool. That's fine. 1. About an hour later, Layla was approached by the security guard and they went out to the street. Layla then received a text message from the mobile number that said "Outside", to which she replied by text message "I'm with Jay". Layla then approached a man of between 25-30 years of middle eastern appearance wearing a black t-shirt and jeans. The man supplied her with approximately 1g of cocaine for $300 in cash. 2. Layla came back inside the premises. Natasha then went outside and was met by a man of middle eastern appearance aged about 25 years, with facial hair and wearing a black t-shirt and blue jeans. The man supplied her with approximately 1g of cocaine for $300 in cash. Natasha then returned to the bar. 3. When Layla returned to the bar area she had a conversation with the appellant in the presence of Natasha that was recorded in their statements as follows: Appellant: How did you go? Layla: Yeah, all good. I think we are going off to the casino, we might see you guys tomorrow night though. Appellant: No worries, good luck ladies. 1. The matter proceeded in the Local Court by the prosecution tendering the police statements. The prosecution witnesses were not required for cross-examination. The appellant did not lead any evidence.