R v Sukkasem [2020] NSWDC 78

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sukkasem [2020] NSWDC 78 Hearing dates: 17 March 2020 Date of orders: 17 March 2020 Decision date: 17 March 2020 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraph 20 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – drug offences – evidence of cash located on premises at which accused apparently resided – pre-trial application to limit evidence to one count (proceeds of crime charge) and exclude evidence in relation to other count (drug possession for purpose of supply) – whether evidence unfairly prejudicial to accused Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 29 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 56, 137 Cases Cited: R v Falzon [2018] HCA 29; 92 ALJR 701 R v Hughes & Curtis (1983) 49 ALR 110 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Crown Ms N Sukkasem Representation: Counsel: Mr J Brook for the Crown Mr G Stanton for the accused

Solicitors: Office of the Director Of Public Prosecutions of New South Wales Legal Fusion File Number(s): 2018/116557 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1. The accused pleads not guilty to two counts on an indictment, those counts being that on 14 December 2017 in Sydney she: 1. supplied a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine contrary to ss 25(1) and 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (the 'DMTA'); and 2. dealt with property, namely $5,630 in cash, in circumstances where there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the property was the proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 1. The trial is before me, sitting alone. 2. The accused raises a pre-trial objection to evidence that the Crown proposes to rely upon. For the purpose of determining the application, I have been supplied with the Crown Case Statement. 3. The gist of the accused's application is that evidence of cash located on premises in which, it appears, she resided or at least last stayed should be excluded from the Court's consideration of count 1. 4. I understand that the objection is based upon ss 55-56 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). That is, I understand that the accused contends that the evidence of cash located on the premises, whilst relevant to count 2, is irrelevant to count 1; or, in the alternative, if it is relevant, it is so unfairly prejudicial as to outweigh its probative value and is thereby rendered inadmissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act.