Police v Asanovic; Police v Ritter

Particularisation of Court Attendance Notices (Mr Asanovic)

1. At the outset, the Prosecution particularised the charges preferred against Mr Asanovic as being founded on the following: - Sequence 1 Supply prohibited drug (36.85g methylamphetamine) s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (a) The presence of 36.85g of methylamphetamine found in a single plastic clear resealable bag in an overhead kitchen cupboard which, by virtue of such weight, amounted to a deemed supply of an indictable quantity of prohibited drug in Sch 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). (b) A quantity of smaller plastic clear resealable bags found beside the aforementioned bag containing the methylamphetamine. (c) The presence of electronic scales found on the kitchen bench. (d) The presence of the DNA of both Defendants located on the bag containing the methylamphetamine. Sequence 2 Deal with property proceeds of crime ($8,055.00) s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The sum of $1,350.00 in cash found on Ms Ritter and handed to Police. (b) The sum of $1,635.00 in cash found in the living room. (c) The sum of $5,070.00 in cash found in the child's room. (d) These sums of money were said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply. Sequence 3 Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger clothing, shoes, bags and watches) s.193B(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The presence of high-end brand goods including Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger clothing, shoes, bags and watches. (b) The presence of receipts evidencing the purchase of such items being predominantly in Ms Ritter's name. (c) Some receipts were said to reveal purchases made using cash. (d) Other receipts were said to reveal purchases made from Ms Ritter's bank account. (e) The purchases of these high-end brand goods were said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply. Sequence 6 Deal with property proceeds of crime ($226,606.14) s.193C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The sum of $109,087.14 derived from a number of deposits into a Westpac bank account between 1 February 2018 and 11 March 2019 held in Mr Asanovic's sole name. (b) The sum of $117,519.00 derived from a number of deposits into an ANZ bank account between 6 June 2018 and 17 December 2018 held in Mr Asanovic's sole name. (c) These sums of money were said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply.
2. At the outset, the Prosecution particularised the charges preferred against Ms Ritter as being founded on the following: - Sequence 1 Supply prohibited drug (36.85g methylamphetamine) s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (a) The presence of 36.85g of methylamphetamine found in a single plastic clear resealable bag in an overhead kitchen cupboard which, by virtue of such weight, amounted to a deemed supply of an indictable quantity of prohibited drug in Sch 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). (b) A quantity of smaller plastic clear resealable bags found beside the aforementioned bag containing the methylamphetamine. (c) The presence of electronic scales found on the kitchen bench. (d) The presence of the DNA of both Defendants located on the bag containing the methylamphetamine. Sequence 2 Possess prohibited drug (36.85g methylamphetamine) s.10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (a) This was a back-up charge to Sequence 1 and in respect of which the Prosecution relied on the same particulars. Sequence 3 Possess prohibited drug (1.04g buprenorphine) s.10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (a) The presence of 1.04g of buprenorphine found in a paper towel beside a number of suboxone strips in the same kitchen cupboard in which the methylamphetamine was found. Sequence 4 Possess prohibited weapon (baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire) s.7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) (a) The presence of a baseball bat with its head wrapped in barbed wire, which was said to constitute a mace, and which was asserted to have been found in an open plan kitchen/dining area. (b) Admissions that Ms Ritter purchased the weapon herself. Sequence 5 Deal with property proceeds of crime ($8,055.00) s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The sum of $1,350.00 in cash found on Ms Ritter and handed to Police. (b) The sum of $1,635.00 in cash found in the living room. (c) The sum of $5,070.00 in cash found in the child's room. (d) These sums of money were said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply. Sequence 6 Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger clothing, shoes, bags and watches) s.193B(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The presence of high-end brand goods including Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger clothing, shoes, bags and watches. (b) The presence of receipts evidencing the purchase of such items being predominantly in Ms Ritter's name. (c) The receipts were said to reveal purchases made using cash. (d) The receipts were said to reveal purchases made from Ms Ritter's bank account. (e) The purchases of these high-end brand goods were said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply. Sequence 7 Unlawfully obtained goods in personal custody (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger clothing, shoes, bags and watches) s.527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) This was a back-up charge to Sequence 6 and in respect of which the Prosecution relied on the same particulars. Sequence 8 Conduct drug premises and expose child to prohibited drugs (child exposure to drug supply process) s.36Z(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (a) The presence of indicia of supply referred to in Sequence 1 which was said to establish 'drug house'. (b) The presence of the Defendants' child residing at the 'drug house'. Sequence 10 Larceny by finding (Mounties Club membership card) s.117 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The presence of a Mounties Club membership card in the name of Chi Phan located in the living room. Sequence 11 Deal with property proceeds of crime ($80,064.85) s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (a) The sum of $80,064.85 derived from a number of deposits into a Commonwealth Bank account between 11 May 2018 and 20 November 2018 held in Ms Ritter's sole name. (b) This sum of money was said to represent unexplained wealth attributable to drug supply.

Legislation and Elements

1. Section 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) provides as follows: - 25 Supply of prohibited drugs (1) A person who supplies, or who knowingly takes part in the supply of, a prohibited drug is guilty of an offence.
2. Given that the allegations levelled against the Defendants related to a deemed supply, rather than an actual supply, the three essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - (a) There was a substance which was a prohibited drug. Schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) specifies those drugs which are prohibited within New South Wales. (b) The Defendant possessed such prohibited drug. As the Prosecution case was founded on joint possession, the Prosecution must prove that each Defendant intentionally had the drug in some place to which they had access and might go to obtain physical custody or control of it, to the exclusion of any other person, either alone or together with some other person acting jointly with him or her in possessing the drug. The Prosecution must prove that in intentionally having such custody or control of the drug, the Defendants knew or believed at the time that the drug was a prohibited drug. The Prosecution may do so by proving actual knowledge or belief of it being a prohibited drug or an awareness that there was a significant or real chance that it was a prohibited drug, which can be inferred from a consideration of the surrounding circumstances provided such inference is the only rational inference open on the evidence as opposed to being based on speculation or suspicion. (c) The Defendant possessed such prohibited drug for the purposes of supply. The extended definition of 'supply' in s.4 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) includes keeping or having a prohibited drug for the purpose of giving or providing it to another person. Section 29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) acts as a facilitation of proof provision by providing that a person who has in their possession a quantity of drug which is not less than the traffickable quantity (as was the case here) is deemed to have the drug in their possession for supply unless, relevantly, the person proves that they had the drug in their possession otherwise than for supply. By virtue of this provision, once the Prosecution has proved all three essential elements beyond reasonable doubt, then it is a defence to the charge if the Defendant proves, on the balance of probabilities, that they had the drug otherwise than for supply: s.141(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). It is to be understood, though, that this does not involve the reversal of the ultimate onus of proof of the indicia of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, which remains with the Prosecution throughout.
3. Section 10(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) provides as follows: - 10 Possession of prohibited drugs (1) A person who has a prohibited drug in his or her possession is guilty of an offence.
4. The two essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - (a) There was a substance which was a prohibited drug. Schedule 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) specifies those drugs which are prohibited within New South Wales. (b) The Defendant possessed such prohibited drug. As the Prosecution case was founded on joint possession, the same test referred to above for element (2) of supply is applicable.
5. It goes without saying that the facilitation of proof provision in s.29 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) does not apply to s.10. Further, whilst there is no definition of 'possession' in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) and in light of the fact that the definition of 'possession' in s.7 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) has no application whatsoever, s.7 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (which encapsulates 'joint possession') is a deeming provision which "extends the common law concept of possession by including within it something which would not otherwise be included within it". Its usual application was said to be "in the situation where the prohibited drug is in the physical custody of another person": R v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64 per Hunt J at 67.
6. Section 36Z(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) provides as follows: - 36Z Offence of organising drug premises … (2) A person who organises or conducts, or assists in organising or conducting, any drug premises is guilty of an offence if the person knows that a child has access to the premises and, as a consequence of that access, the child is exposed to - (a) a prohibited drug or prohibited plant, or (b) a drug supply process, or (c) any equipment capable of being used to administer a prohibited drug. Maximum penalty - (a) for a first offence - 60 penalty units or imprisonment for 14 months (or both), and (b) for a second or subsequent offence - 600 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 years (or both).
7. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - (a) A person organised or conducted (or assisted in doing so). There is no definition of organising or conducting contained within the legislation and, therefore, the ordinary English meaning of these words applies. The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'organise' as meaning, relevantly, 'to form as or into a whole consisting of interdependent or coordinated parts, especially for harmonious or united action; to systematise'. The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'conduct' as meaning, relevantly, 'to direct in action or course; manage; carry on; to direct as leader; to lead or guide'. (b) Drug premises. The term 'drug premises' is defined, exhaustively, in s.36TA of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) as follows: - drug premises means any premises that are used for either or both of the following - (a) the unlawful supply or manufacture of prohibited drugs, (b) the unlawful commercial cultivation of prohibited plants by enhanced indoor means. Section 36W(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) acts as a facilitation of proof provision, enumerating a number of non-exhaustive factors to which regard may be had to assist in determining whether premises involved in the offence were being used for the unlawful supply or manufacture of any prohibited drug. These include evidence of wilfully preventing, obstructing or delaying a police officer authorised by law to enter the premises; evidence of external or internal construction of the premises that is found likely to have been fitted with a bolt, bar, chain or any means or device for the purpose of preventing, obstructing or delaying the entry into the premises of such a police officer; evidence of a person acting as a lookout to warn persons on the premises of the approach of police officers or other persons; evidence found on the premises of any syringe or other means or device used in the supply, manufacture or use of a prohibited drug; evidence found on the premises or in the possession of a person on the premises of a firearm or prohibited weapon, the possession of which is unlawful; evidence found on the premises of any documents or other records that appear to have been kept or used in connection with the unlawful supply or manufacture of a prohibited drug; evidence found on the premises of any large amount of money that is not accounted for by the owner or occupier of the premises; evidence found on the premises of persons who appear to be affected by a prohibited drug. (c) Knowing that a child had access to the premises. The Prosecution must prove knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. It may do so in a variety of ways, including inferentially or by conclusion from a consideration of the surrounding circumstances, provided any such inference or conclusion is a rational one and is not based on speculation or suspicion. The term 'child' is defined in s.36TA of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) as a person who is under the age of 16 years. (d) As a consequence of such access, the child was exposed to a prohibited drug; a drug supply process; or any equipment capable of being used to administer a prohibited drug. The phrase 'a prohibited drug' is a reference to those drugs specified in Sch 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). The phrase 'a drug supply process' is defined in s.36Z(7) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) as meaning 'any method used to supply or manufacture prohibited drugs or to cultivate prohibited plants.' The phrase 'any equipment capable of being used to administer a prohibited drug' is a reference to drug paraphernalia used in the administration of a prohibited drug. By virtue of s.5 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), a reference to 'administration' of a prohibited drug 'includes a reference to the ingestion, injection and inhalation of a prohibited drug, the smoking of a prohibited drug, the inhalation of fumes caused by the heating or burning of a prohibited drug and any other means of introducing a prohibited drug into any part of the body of a person.'
8. To avoid doubt, the Prosecution's preferment of paragraph (a) in s.36Z(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) is a reference to the alleged offence being a first offence under the maximum penalty heading in the provision as opposed to being a reference to a prohibited drug or prohibited plant in the substantive body of the subsection.
9. Sections 193C(1) and (2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides as follows: - 193C Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime (1) A person is guilty of an offence if - (a) the person deals with property, and (b) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is proceeds of crime, and (c) at the time of the dealing, the value of the property is $100,000 or more. Maximum penalty - Imprisonment for 5 years. (2) A person is guilty of an offence if - (a) the person deals with property, and (b) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is proceeds of crime, and (c) at the time of the dealing, the value of the property is less than $100,000. Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.
10. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - 1. Dealing with property. Section 193A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides a non-exhaustive definition as follows: - deal with includes - (a) receive, possess, conceal or dispose of, or (b) bring or cause to be brought into New South Wales, including transfer or cause to be transferred by electronic communication, or (c) engage directly or indirectly in a transaction, including receiving or making a gift. 1. Reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is proceeds of crime. Section 193A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides the following exhaustive definitions relevant to this ingredient: - proceeds of crime means any property that is substantially derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of a serious offence. serious offence means - (a) an offence (including a common law offence) against the laws of New South Wales, being an offence that may be prosecuted on indictment, or … Section 193C(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) acts as a facilitation of proof provision by way of deeming a number of non-exhaustive circumstances that amount to reasonable grounds to suspect that property is proceeds of crime. 1. Value of the property (either more than or less than $100,000.00 as the case may be).
11. Section 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides as follows: -

193B Money laundering … (3) A person who deals with proceeds of crime being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of crime is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty - imprisonment for 10 years.

1. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - 1. Dealing with. The same test referred to above for element (1) of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime is applicable. 1. Proceeds of crime. The same test referred to above for element (2) of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime is applicable. 1. Being reckless as to whether it is proceeds of crime. The concept of recklessness is not defined in the legislation. Section 4A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) acts as a facilitation of proof provision whereby if an element of an offence is recklessness, that element may also be established by proof of intention or knowledge. Recklessness has an inherent subjectivity about it and operates irrespective of one's intention. One can be found to be reckless when he or she acts with the knowledge that an unlawful consequence is the likely result of his or her actions. Alternatively, one can be found to be reckless where he or she is aware of the possible existence of certain circumstances but acts regardless or indifferently to their existence: R v Kitchener (1993) 29 NSWLR 696.
2. Section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides as follows: - 117 Punishment for larceny Whosoever commits larceny, or any indictable offence by this Act made punishable like larceny, shall, except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provided for, be liable to imprisonment for five years.
3. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - 1. Wrongful taking and carrying away. This element involves the physical movement of the property in circumstances which constitute a trespass to that property and a fraudulent intent at the time of taking. 1. Personal goods of another. The property must belong to another and it is sufficient if it is of value to such other. 1. Intention to permanently deprive the owner of such property. The intention to deprive must exist when the taking occurs. Further, a temporary taking without such intention is not larceny. 1. Without his or her consent. The property must be taken without the consent of the lawful owner, which may be established circumstantially and without the evidence of the owner.
4. In the present case, the Prosecution averred a larceny by finding. In such circumstances, the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt a belief on the part of the Defendant that the owner of the item can indeed be found. Such a belief can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances provided, as always, it is the only rational inference available on the evidence.
5. Section 7(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) provides as follows: - 7 Offence of unauthorised possession or use of prohibited weapon (1) A person must not possess or use a prohibited weapon unless the person is authorised to do so by a permit. Maximum penalty: imprisonment for 14 years.
6. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - 1. Possession or use. In the present case, the Prosecution averred possession. Use, therefore, does not fall for consideration. The Prosecution must prove that one intentionally had control over the weapon in question either alone or jointly with another, and there must exist the right to exclude other people from it. A passing reference should also be made to s.7 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which deals with situations which, although falling short of actual possession, may be deemed to amount to possession. 1. Prohibited weapon. Section 4(1) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) provides that the phrase 'prohibited weapon' is anything described in Sch 1. In the present case, the Prosecution averred that the prohibited weapon constituted a mace or similar article. Relevantly, cl.2(12) of Sch 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) provides: - (12) A mace or any other similar article that consists of a club or staff fitted with a flanged or spiked head, other than a ceremonial mace made for and used solely as a symbol of authority on ceremonial occasions. 1. Without authorisation. Part 2, Division 2 (ss.8 - 19) of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) establishes a permit scheme authorising the holder of a permit to possess, use, buy, sell or manufacture, as the case may be, a prohibited weapon only in specified circumstances.
7. Section 527C(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides as follows: - 527C Persons unlawfully in possession of property (1) Any person who - (a) has any thing in his or her custody, … which thing may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, is liable on conviction before the Local Court - … (b) in the case of any other thing, to imprisonment for 6 months, or to a fine of 5 penalty units, or both.
8. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution must prove, each beyond reasonable doubt, are as follows: - 1. Had any thing. Little need be said about this element. It is of wide import. 1. In her or his custody. The Prosecution must prove that one intentionally had possession of, custody of or control over the item(s) in question either alone or jointly with another, and there must exist the right to exclude other people from it. 1. Which thing may reasonably be suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained. The Court may have regard to the nature of the item, the circumstances of its finding, a defendant's behaviour with respect to the item, the truthfulness or otherwise (including any evasive conduct) with respect to any explanation as to such custody and the provenance of the item: R v Madden (1995) 85 A Crim R 367 per Hunt CJ at CL at 370 - 371. More importantly, the suspicion is something which must attach to the item themselves. The suspicion, and whether it was reasonable, of a police officer investigating the alleged offence or some other person has no role to play in the decision-making process. The Court's decision is to be based on the whole of the evidence adduced so as to determine, objectively, whether the item might reasonably be suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained.

Cautionary Criminal Trial Directions

1. The Prosecution case was based partly on direct evidence and partly on circumstantial evidence and, because this was so, various cautionary criminal trial directions are called into play, as if I were directing a jury on the application of the law to the facts, as they found them to be, in matters prosecuted on indictment.
2. It is well established that criminal trial directions apply to a magistrate or judge sitting alone as they do to a trial before a judge and jury: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250. Lest there be any doubt, I have directed myself in accordance with the cautionary criminal trial directions referred to in these reasons for decision.
3. I repeat the oft-cited trial direction regarding the standard and burden of proof. The Prosecution must prove each of the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. It is not for the Defendants to prove their innocence, but rather for the Prosecution to prove their guilt. In the event that the Prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to the requisite criminal standard, in relation to each of the Defendants, a verdict of not guilty must be returned and the Defendant (or Defendants as the case may be) acquitted.
4. There are other criminal trial directions which I ought give myself. Neither Defendant gave evidence in this matter and no adverse inference is to be drawn from their decision not to do so. Neither Defendant provided a Record of Interview, however, Ms Ritter was present at the premises during the execution of the search warrant. The search warrant video was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. The typed transcript of the search warrant video was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 5. To the extent that Ms Ritter answered questions asked of her by the searching and investigative officers, some of which the Prosecution asserted were in the nature of admissions and inculpatory statements, such remarks are open to scrutiny in the ordinary course as part of the assessment of the evidence as a whole.
5. The customary direction where the Prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence is that guilt should not only be a rational inference but should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances: Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 (at 578).
6. It is necessary for the tribunal of fact to decide whether it accepts the evidence of a particular fact not by considering the evidence directly relating to that fact in isolation, but in the light of the whole evidence. It can draw an inference of guilt from a combination of facts, none of which viewed alone would support that inference. It cannot view an intermediate fact as an indispensable basis for an inference of guilt unless, at the end of the day, it is satisfied of the existence of that fact beyond reasonable doubt: Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 (at 535); Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 (at 576).
7. When the evidence is circumstantial, the tribunal of fact may draw an inference of guilt from the circumstances of the case. It must, however, exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence: Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 (at 535).
8. It is to be stressed that the Court, as the trier of fact, cannot convict if there is any rational hypothesis or reasonable possibility consistent with innocence: Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619 (at 634); Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234. If there is, then in such circumstances, it ought give the defendant the benefit of the doubt necessarily created by that circumstance: Pitkin v R (1995) 130 ALR 35 (at 39).
9. The guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. A doubt must be entertained where any other inference consistent with innocence is reasonably open on the evidence: Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 (at 579).
10. Two further matters ought be borne in mind.
11. First, it is erroneous for a tribunal of fact to consider each item of evidence separately and eliminate it from consideration, no matter how or by whom it was raised, unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be considered as a whole, not in isolation: Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7.
12. Secondly, if upon a review of all the evidence the tribunal of fact is left with reasonable doubt about whether the Prosecution case has been made out, a verdict of acquittal must be returned: Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.

Detective Senior Constable Philip Gregorace

1. The Statement of Detective Senior Constable Philip Gregorace, dated 20 December 2018, was tendered into evidence as Exhibit 2. His statement was to the following effect: - 1. At or about 9.30 p.m. on 28 September 2018, six days before the execution of the search warrant at 14 Janacek Place, Bonnyrigg NSW 2177 ("the premises"), he and Senior Constable Samir Hatif (the officer-in-charge), conducted surveillance in the vicinity of the premises, which is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs; 2. He sighted two persons walking from near the front yard of the house to a footpath at the end of Janacek Street that lead to Wilson Road and then entered a vehicle parked on the eastern kerb before leaving; 3. At or about 9.55 p.m. on 28 September 2018, a male known to police walked from the front yard of the house towards the same footpath that lead to Wilson Road and then entered a Honda CRV vehicle (Rego No: XLL809); 4. He stopped and searched the Honda and its occupants, a female driver and male passenger, on Wilson Road, Bonnyrigg; 5. The male passenger removed a small amount of heroin and a small bag from within his underpants. The heroin was located in a small resealable bag within a Mentos container, together with items relating to drug use including straws, an ice pipe and empty resealable bags; 6. Nothing of interest was found upon a search of the female driver; 7. Within the vehicle was a black bag resting on the male passenger's lap which contained a small set of electronic scales. He charged the male in relation to the items found; 8. At or about 11.00 a.m. on 4 October 2018, he and Detective Rigney conducted surveillance in the vicinity of the premises and saw a male speaking to another male of Asian appearance on the street outside the house. The male walked back inside the house. The Asian male walked to the end of the cul-de-sac, along the path to a vehicle parked on Wilson Road, using the same route taken by those persons sighted six days earlier; 9. At or about 11.35 a.m. on 4 October 2018, he was allocated the role of searching officer and, together with a number of other officers, executed a search warrant over the premises. The male he had seen walk into the house 15 minutes earlier was not present. Ms Ritter's young son (DR) and Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) were present; 10. The case officer was Senior Constable Hatif. The video officer was Detective Sergeant George Brticevic. The searching officer was Senior Constable Fitzgerald. The exhibits officer was Detective Rigney. The independent officer was Inspector Thomas; 11. Of note, located within the kitchen cupboard was methylamphetamine and Suboxone film 8/2 strips; 12. Located within other parts of the house were clothing tags, paperwork and receipts; and 13. He photographed a number of the items including Gucci receipts, Gucci clothing and shoes, Louis Vuitton receipts, Louis Vuitton shoes, Burberry receipts, Burberry glasses, Philipp Plein clothing, children's Gucci jacket, Prada handbag and two purses.
2. His evidence-in-chief was as follows: - 1. He had a conversation with the male passenger as to what the crystallised substance in the freezer bag was and as to what the powder substance in the resealable bag was; 2. He confirmed that he found the Suboxone in the male passenger's wallet and that it was similar in appearance to the Suboxone strips found in the premises during the execution of the search warrant; and 3. The resealable bag within a larger bag found on the male passenger was identical in appearance to those bags found in the premises during the execution of the search warrant.
3. His evidence in cross-examination was as follows: - 1. By 'identical', he meant that it looked the same; and 2. He did not take any photos of the drugs (or other items) found on the male passenger.
4. Detective Senior Constable Philip Gregorace was not re-examined.

Detective Senior Constable Stephen Fitzgerald

1. The Statement of Detective Senior Constable Stephen Fitzgerald, dated 4 January 2019, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statement was to the following effect: - 1. At or about 11.35 a.m. on 4 October 2018, he, along with a number of other officers, was involved in the execution of the search warrant at the premises; 2. Ms Ritter's 10-year-old son and Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) were located within the premises. Not long after officers forced entry into the premises, Ms Ritter returned home and was served with the occupier's notice; 3. At about 11.53 a.m., the sum of $1,350.00 in cash, together with an iPhone in a pink case, was located on Ms Ritter; 4. At about 12.27 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace, while searching the lounge room, located a black Samsung mobile phone, battery charger and Mounties Club membership card in the name of Chi Phan; 5. At about 12.40 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace located $1,635.00 in cash in a white container on a fold-up table; 6. A search of the linen closet located a number of perfumes; 7. At about 1.00 p.m., the search moved to Ms Ritter's 10-year-old son's bedroom where Det Snr Cst Gregorace located nine mobile phones (four iPhones and five Samsung phones). Within one of the iPhone X boxes was $5,070.00 in cash. These items were located in the bedside tables and a drawer; 8. The search then moved into the second bedroom, then being the master bedroom. At about 1.48 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace located seven Gucci (shopping) bags and a yellow Louis Vuitton (shopping) bag (as opposed to handbags) containing numerous items of clothing and shoes; 9. He found a number of receipts within some of the boxes; 10. The search then moved to the bathroom and third bedroom where no items of interest were located; 11. The search then moved to the kitchen. At about 2.04 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace located a number of items of interest in the kitchen cupboard including what he understood to be 1.3g of heroin in an orange balloon, six Suboxone strips, 39.2g of methylamphetamine a plastic resealable bag, a packet of empty plastic resealable bags and elastic bands. Further, a black set of scales was located on the kitchen bench; 12. At about 2.18 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace located a CCTV camera in the cupboard; 13. At about 2.45 p.m., Det Snr Cst Gregorace located a pink computer tablet in the kitchen cupboard; 14. The search then continued in the rear bathroom and open room and, at about 3.15 p.m., a number of items were found in the cupboards and around the room including a baseball bat covered in barbed wire, a black storage device, two handbags, numerous items of clothing, shoes, a wallet, a receipt and two watches; 15. The search continued into the back yard and into a vehicle located in the front yard (Rego No: BYA 53K); 16. At about 3.58 p.m., he located a white CCTV camera following which the search warrant was concluded; 17. All items located were video recorded as they were found. Det Cst Rigney would have entered the items into the seizure book; 18. During most of the search warrant, Ms Ritter was speaking with the investigators and answering questions in English; 19. After the completion of the search warrant, Ms Ritter was arrested and conveyed to Fairfield Police Station. He was informed that Ms Ritter was unable to speak English well and requested a Romanian speaking interpreter. He called a Romanian NAATI-accredited interpreter who assisted in explaining to Ms Ritter the Part 9 LEPRA documents being read to her by a custody sergeant. This was done with the assistance of the Romanian-speaking interpreter on loudspeaker. Ms Ritter declined to be interviewed; 20. After taking Ms Ritter into an interview room, he again called a Romanian NAATI-accredited interpreter and sought consent from Ms Ritter to carry out a forensic procedure in the form of a buccal swab. He also explained the content of the information sheet to Ms Ritter following which she refused to submit to a forensic procedure; and 21. Some time later, he and Snr Cst Hatif took Ms Ritter to an interview room again and, for a third time, called a Romanian NAATI-accredited interpreter during which Ms Ritter sought clarification before consenting to, and completing, a self-administered forensic procedure in the form of a buccal swab.
2. Detective Senior Constable Stephen Fitzgerald was not called to give oral evidence or to be cross-examined.

Senior Constable Samir Hatif (Officer-in-Charge)

1. The Statements of Senior Constable Samir Hatif (Officer-in-Charge), dated 5 December 2018 and 18 April 2019, were tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statements were to the following effect: - 1. On 2 October 2018, he applied for and was granted a search warrant for the premises in relation to the supply of prohibited drugs, particularly methylamphetamine and heroin; 2. On 4 October 2018, he, along with a number of other officers, was involved in the execution of the search warrant at the premises; 3. After knocking and announcing their presence, officers forced entry through the front door. Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) and Ms Ritter's 10-year-old son were located within the house and, shortly thereafter, Ms Ritter attended the location on foot. The search warrant recording commenced at 11.37 a.m. After cautioning Ms Ritter and Mr Nezvat Asanovic, he explained to them the reason for the search warrant before commencing questioning. All questions and answers were recorded on the search warrant video; 4. He asked them if they had any large sums of cash within the home. Ms Ritter handed to him $1,350.00 in cash which she had in her pocket; 5. A search of the house was conducted during which further sums of cash along with other items of interest, including drugs, were found and of which photographs were taken and items were seized and handed to the exhibits officer who recorded them accordingly; 6. His questions and Ms Ritter's answers in respect of the items seized were recorded electronically on the search warrant video; 7. After the search of the premises, he conducted a recorded interview with Mr Nezvat Asanovic. He also arrested Ms Ritter before she was conveyed back to Fairfield Police Station by other officers; 8. Following advice received her solicitor, Ms Ritter declined to take part in a Record of Interview; 9. He then asked Ms Ritter to provide consent to a forensic procedure being carried out in the form of a buccal swab. Following advice received from her solicitor, Ms Ritter provided such consent and a buccal swab was obtained; 10. He sent a number of items away for analysis and sought certificates in respect of these items, including drug analysis, exhibit examination, DNA certificate and prohibited weapon examination; and 11. On or about 10 December 2018, he and Det Snr Cst Rigney spoke with Mr Daniel Asanovic. Following advice received from his solicitor, Mr Asanovic declined to take part in a Record of Interview. He did, however, provide consent to a forensic procedure being carried out in the form of a buccal swab which was obtained and sealed in his presence.
2. His evidence-in-chief and cross-examination (there being no re-examination) had two components. First, questions were asked of him as to the practical and administrative aspects of the execution of the search warrant, coupled with any English language barriers as between police and Ms Ritter. The oral evidence formed the basis of the Court's interlocutory ruling that the search warrant video, which included Ms Ritter's responses to questions asked of her throughout, was admissible. In the circumstances, this evidence need not be repeated here as it went to the discrete evidentiary issue identified above. Secondly, it was throughout his evidence-in-chief during which the search warrant video was played and tendered into evidence as Exhibit 3. This is summarised below.

Senior Constable Sachin Raj (Team Leader for Search Warrant Entry Team)

1. The Statement of Senior Constable Sachin Raj, dated 5 December 2018, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statement is of little note, other than to outline the administrative aspects of the execution of the search warrant including his role as team leader for the entry team and that the only persons located on the premises at the point of entry were Ms Ritter's 10-year-old son and Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic). He did not give oral evidence.

Detective Sergeant George Brticevic (Search Warrant Video Recorder)

1. The Statement of Detective Sergeant George Brticevic, dated 23 April 2019, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statement is of little note, other than to outline the administrative aspects of the execution of the search warrant including his role as the officer who recorded the entire search warrant using a video camera. He too confirmed that the only persons located on the premises at the point of entry were Ms Ritter's 10-year-old son and Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) although, Ms Ritter attended the location on foot at about 11.37 a.m. on 4 October 2018, at which time she was served with the occupier's notice and was cautioned. He did not give oral evidence.

Senior Constable Aslim Khan (Exhibits Officer)

1. The two Statements of Senior Constable Aslim Khan, both dated 23 April 2019, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statements, to which no objection was taken, confirmed that on 11 October 2018 and 13 December 2018, respectively, he conveyed the DNA samples (buccal swabs) to Forensic and Analytical Science Service ("FASS") laboratory for testing. He did not give oral evidence.

Mr Chi Phan (Mounties Club member)

1. The Statement of Mr Chi Phan, dated 7 August 2019, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. His statement, to which no objection was taken, confirmed that he had been a member of the Mounties Club for about five years and that he had lost his membership card on numerous occasions. He had last lost his membership card in or about August 2018. A photo of his membership card was shown to him and he confirmed that it was his. He also stated that he did not know either of the two Defendants. He did not give oral evidence.

Ms Tina Ly (Landlord)

1. The Statement of Ms Tina Ly, dated 30 July 2019, was tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. Her statement, to which no objection was taken, confirmed that she had owned the premises (14 Janacek Place, Bonnyrigg NSW 2177) since 2014. She had advertised the home for rent online for $560.00 per week. On or about 20 May 2018, she met with the Defendants at the premises during which time they inspected the property, paid her two weeks' rent in advance in the sum of $1,120.00 and signed a Residential Tenancy Agreement (for a six-month period between 20 May 2018 and 20 November 2018 at a rent of $560.00 per week). The Defendants resided in the premises until some time in July 2019, at which time she met with Ms Ritter and returned the two weeks' advance rent before the Defendants vacated the premises. She stated that while the Defendants were leasing the premises, Ms Ritter would pay her the rent, on occasions in the sum of $1,120.00 per fortnight and on other occasions $2,240.00 for the entire month and she would attend the premises to collect the rent, which was always paid in cash. A copy of the Residential Tenancy Agreement dated 20 May 2018, nominating the tenant as "Danile Ritter", and apparently signed by "Daniel Ritter" and witnessed by "Rahela" was annexed to her statement. She did not give oral evidence.

Drug and DNA Evidentiary Certificates

1. The Mass Certificate and Statement of Mr Gagandeep Virk (Crime Scene Officer Drug Sampling Unit), dated 11 October 2018 and 20 May 2019, respectively, together with the two Certificates of Analysis of Andrew Leong (FASS Analyst), dated 19 October 2018 and 31 October 2018, and an Expert Certificate of Ms Lisa-Ann Wedervang (FASS Analyst), dated 5 March 2019, were tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. Neither gave evidence. These evidentiary documents, to which no objection was taken, confirmed that: - 1. The analysis of the crystalline substance revealed that it was 36.85g of methylamphetamine [and, therefore, an indictable quantity of prohibited drug under Column 3, Sch 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)]; 2. The analysis of the Suboxone film 8/2 strips revealed that they amounted to a total of 1.04g of buprenorphine [and, therefore, a small quantity of prohibited drug under Column 2, Sch 1 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)]; 3. There was a positive match to the two Defendants' DNA in the analysis of the (snap lock) seal portion of the resealable plastic bag (as opposed to some other part of the bag) containing the 36.85g of methylamphetamine. The result was that "the DNA recovered is a mixture that originates from at least two individuals." Ms Rahela Ritter could not be excluded as the "major contributor" and Mr Daniel Asanovic could not be excluded as the "minor contributor." It was on this basis that the conclusion was reached that "it is greater than 100 billion times more likely to obtain this mixed profile if it originates from Ms Rahela Ritter and Mr Daniel Asanovic, rather than if it originates from two unknown, unrelated individuals in the Australian population"; 4. No fingerprints were located on the various items analysed; and 5. The DNA testing of the bag of elastic bands, electronic scales and the packet of resealable plastic bags was unsuccessful.

Bank statements and accountholder records (Mr Daniel Asanovic)

1. The bank statements and accountholder records of NAB, CBA, Westpac and ANZ Bank in relation to Mr Daniel Asanovic (one and the same person as the accountholder "Daniel Ritter") were tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. Neither of the record holders employed by the various banks, who produced the bank statements and accountholder records, gave evidence. The salient features of these documents were as follows: - 1. Mr Asanovic, at various times over the years, held the following bank accounts: - a. Westpac Account No: XXX XXX 342; b. Westpac Account No: XXX XXX 828; c. ANZ Account No: XXX XXX 946; d. CBA Account No: XXX XXX 352; e. CBA (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 098; f. CBA (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 285; 1. Although an affidavit was obtained from the record holder employed at NAB, no documents in the nature of bank statements or accountholder records were produced, other than a customer screenshot evidencing 100 points of identification produced to create a customer profile; 2. The ANZ customer details screenshot is understood as revealing that Mr Asanovic presented, at some stage, a Centrelink government benefit notice and an Australian passport as part of the ANZ Know Your Customer ("KYC") customer identification process; 3. The WBC customer details printout is understood as revealing that Mr Asanovic presented, at some stage, information detailing his "occupation" as "unemployed" on page 1. The "account class" on page 3 is listed as being "cleaning services" and the "account class" on page 4 is listed as being "no answer". The document reveals him having been a customer since 27 February 2007 and the customer details information having been last updated on 15 August 2018 and last verified on 4 April 2017. Bank statements were provided for Account No: XXX XXX 828. No bank statements were provided for Account No: XXX XXX 342; 4. The CBA records in relation to what appear to be historical bank accounts opened on 25 July 2000 and 28 February 2007 (when he was 10 years old and 17 years old, respectively) are understood as revealing that Mr Asanovic (or his parent or guardian) presented, at some stage, information detailing his occupation as "student" on the CBA (historical) Dollarmite account (Account No: XXX XXX 098), the new account declaration and authority of which appears to have been signed by "E. Ritter" (presumably, his mother, Ecaterina Ritter), as "parent or guardian" for the "funds held in trust", and the CBA (historical) Streamline account (Account No: XXX XXX 285). Given the antiquity of these documents and the period to which they relate, no weight is placed on the classification of "student" listed therein. Indeed, no bank statements were provided for these two accounts, unsurprisingly; 5. The CBA records in relation to what appears to be a more recent Smart Access bank account (Account No: XXX XXX 352) reveal that the account was opened on or about 29 February 2016. No bank statements were provided for this account nor was there any occupation classification; 6. The bank statements referable to the Westpac Account No: XXX XXX 828 for the period 1 February 2018 to 1 August 2018 revealed an opening balance of $131.71 and a closing balance of $2.11 with total deposits amounting to $41,402.80 and total withdrawals amounting to $41,532.40. Some of the salient entries were as follows: - Date Action Debit Credit a. 5.2.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 4,900.80 b. 8.2.2018 Mobile withdrawal $ 3,000.00 c. 5.3.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 900.00 d. 5.3.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,050.00 e. 5.3.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,000.00 f. 5.3.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,050.00 g. 5.3.2018 Deposit $ 5,980.00 h. 5.3.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $ 5,980.00 i. 6.3.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $ 5,869.53 j. 7.3.2018 Branch deposit Fairfield $ 9,050.00 k. 7.3.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $ 9,030.00 l. 12.3.2018 ATM deposit Liverpool $ 1,150.00 m. 12.3.2018 ATM deposit Liverpool $ 1,900.00 n. 12.3.2018 ATM deposit Liverpool $ 2,600.00 o. 5.3.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $ 5,630.00 p. 22.3.2018 ATM deposit Cessnock $ 790.00 q. 22.3.2018 ATM deposit Cessnock $ 1,950.00 r. 22.3.2018 ATM deposit Cessnock $ 2,000.00 s. 22.3.2018 ATM deposit Cessnock $ 2,000.00 t. 22.3.2018 Withdrawal Cabramatta $ 6,700.00 u. 13.8.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,500.00 v. 13.8.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $12,206.83 w. 13.8.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $17,580.01 x. 16.8.2018 Withdrawal Fairfield $19,000.00 y. 16.8.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) "Purchase Property" $10,000.00 z. 27.8.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,050.00 aa. 27.8.2018 ATM deposit Maitland $ 1,750.00 bb. 27.8.2018 ATM deposit Maitland $ 2,250.00 cc. 31.8.2018 ATM deposit Fairfield $ 500.00 dd. 31.8.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $10,000.00 ee. 5.9.2018 Withdrawal Fairfield $ 7,400.00 ff. 12.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,650.00 gg. 12.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,850.00 hh. 12.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,950.00 ii. 12.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,000.00 jj. 12.9.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $ 7,400.00 kk. 9.10.2018 Purchase Flight Centre $ 2,100.00 ll. 12.10.2018 Purchase Otopeni, Romania $ 1.45 mm. 12.10.2018 Purchase Otopeni, Romania $ 1.81 nn. 12.10.2018 Purchase Otopeni, Romania $ 3.62

1. The bank statements referable to the Pensioner Advantage ANZ Account No: XXX XXX 946 for the period 23 October 2018 to 21 December 2018 revealed an opening balance of $6.24 and a closing balance of $21.13 with total deposits amounting to $61,106.91 and total withdrawals amounting to $61,092.02. Some of the salient entries were as follows: - Date Action Debit Credit a. 1.8.2018 Deposit transfer from Clint Crosby "Paint house work" $ 6,500.00 b. 6.8.2018 Deposit transfer from Clint Crosby "Labour work house" $ 4,400.00 c. 6.8.2018 Deposit transfer from Clint Crosby "Final reno payment" $16,000.00 d. 7.8.2018 Withdrawal Fairfield $14,000.00 e. 11.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 1,900.00 f. 11.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,100.00 g. 11.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,400.00 h. 11.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,450.00 i. 11.9.2018 ATM deposit Cabramatta $ 2,500.00 j. 12.9.2018 Withdrawal (overseas telegraphic transfer) $11,300.00 k. 8.11.2018 Deposit Fairfield $13,000.00 l. 14.11.2018 Deposit Fairfield $ 6,000.00 m. 19.11.2018 Deposit transfer from Ecaterina Ritter "Car" $ 5,000.00 n. 19.11.2018 Deposit transfer from Ecaterina Ritter "Car" $ 5,000.00 o. 19.11.2018 ATM withdrawal Canley Heights $ 952.50 p. 19.11.2018 ATM withdrawal Fairfield $ 1,000.00 q. 19.11.2018 Banking payment transfer to "DA" $ 1,000.00 r. 19.11.2018 Purchase "Veri Boutique" $ 2,178.00 s. 20.11.2018 Banking payment transfer to "LJ Hooker" $ 1,840.00 t. 21.11.2018 Deposit transfer from Ecaterina Ritter $18,800.00 u. 21.11.2018 Deposit transfer from Clint Crosby "Car parts" $ 3,000.00 v. 23.11.2018 Withdrawal Fairfield $ 5,000.00 w. 17.12.2018 Deposit Fairfield $ 9,000.00 x. 20.12.2018 Purchase "Louis Vuitton" $ 4,050.00

Bank statements and accountholder records (Ms Rahela Ritter)

1. The bank statements and accountholder records of NAB, ANZ, St George Bank (merged with Westpac) and CBA in relation to Ms Rahela Ritter (one and the same person as "Rahela Daniela Ritter" and "Rahela Zagor") were tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. Neither of the record holders employed by the various banks, who produced the bank statements and accountholder records, gave evidence. The salient features of these documents were as follows: - 1. Ms Ritter, at various times over the years, held the following bank accounts: - a. NAB (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 239; b. ANZ (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 214; c. ANZ (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 668; d. St George Bank (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 445; e. St George Bank Account No: XXX XXX 064 ; f. CBA Account No: XXX XXX 112; g. CBA Account No: XXX XXX 091; 1. NAB did not hold any accounts for Mr Ritter for the requested dates between 1 May 2018 and 10 December 2018 and, therefore, no documents in the nature of bank statements or accountholder records were produced, other than four screenshots evidencing a customer summary and 100 points of identification produced to complete what appeared to be a historical customer profile created on 30 August 2013. The customer profile is understood as revealing that Ms Ritter presented, at some stage, information detailing her "occupation class" as "home duties" on page 1; 2. The ANZ records are understood as revealing that Ms Ritter had two accounts, namely, ANZ (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 214 (opened at Cabramatta on 29 December 2014) and ANZ (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 668 (opened at Wentworthville on 16 March 2015). As to the former account number, no documents were produced as the account had been closed prior to the requested period of enquiry. As to the latter account number, there were no transactions in the requested period of enquiry; 3. The St George Bank records are understood as revealing that Ms Ritter had two accounts, namely, St George Bank (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 445 (opened on 22 June 2011 and closed on 23 July 2018) and St George Bank Account No: XXX XXX 064 (opened on 23 July 2018). As to the former account number, one of the documents produced by Ms Ritter for verification purposes was her Romanian passport. The records pertaining to the former account number are understood as revealing that Ms Ritter presented, at some stage, information detailing her "occupation" as "student tertiary (other)" on page 2. The records pertaining to the latter account number are understood as revealing that Ms Ritter presented, at some stage, information detailing her "occupation" as "miscellaneous (other)" on page 2; 4. The CBA records in relation to what appears to be a Smart Access bank account (Account No: XXX XXX 112) reveal that the account was opened on or about 15 May 2017. There were no records provided in respect of what appears to be a NetBank Saver account (Account No: XXX XXX 091); 5. The bank statements referable to the St George Bank (historical) Account No: XXX XXX 445 for the period 22 June 2018 to 23 July 2018 revealed a closing balance of $0.01; 6. The bank statements referable to the St George Bank Account No: XXX XXX 064 for the period 23 July 2018 to 9 October 2018 revealed an opening balance of $30.00 and a closing balance of $937.49, with very few deposits and withdrawals. A Single Transaction Detail document revealed the purchase of a $415.00 item on 4 December 2018 from Gucci Australia Sydney; 7. The bank statements referable to the CBA Smart Access bank account (Account No: XXX XXX 112) for the period 1 May 2018 to 10 December 2018 revealed an opening balance of $894.65 and a closing balance of $229.91. There were numerous transfers, withdrawals and deposits of $1,000.00, $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 and lump-sum amounts in between. Some of the salient entries were as follows: - Date Action Debit Credit a. 20.3.2018 Withdrawal (international money transfer to Cristia Zagor) $ 890.00 b. 24.8.2018 ATM deposit Rutherford $ 2,000.00 c. 24.8.2018 Withdrawal Cabramatta $ 2,000.00 d. 26.8.2018 Deposit transfer from Eva-Lyn-Sugui Ra "Home renovations" $ 5,000.00 e. 27.8.2018 Withdrawal Cabramatta $ 4,850.00 f. 27.8.2018 Payment Telstra bill $ 150.00 g. 9.9.2018 ATM deposit Mittagong $ 3,100.00 h. 9.9.2018 Withdrawal (international money transfer to Cristia Zagor) $ 2,979.99 i. 25.9.2018 Purchase "Louis Vuitton" $ 2,315.00 j. 25.9.2018 Purchase "Gucci Sydney" $ 1,260.00

1. A summary of the cash and electronic funds transfer deposits which the Prosecution asserted formed the basis of the Sequence 6 charge of deal with property proceeds of crime ($226,606.14) contrary to s.193C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), preferred against Mr Asanovic, was as follows: - Daniel Asanovic Daniel Asanovic WBC Account No: XXX 828 ANZ Account No: XXX 946 Date Amount Date Amount 5/02/2018 $4,900.80 6/06/2018 $240.00 9/02/2018 $135.00 13/06/2018 $400.00 15/02/2018 $250.00 5/07/2018 $200.00 21/02/2018 $250.00 11/07/2018 $800.00 23/02/2018 $135.00 12/07/2018 $150.00 1/03/2018 $250.00 12/07/2018 $200.00 5/03/2018 $900.00 12/07/2018 $475.00 5/03/2018 $1,050.00 13/07/2018 $230.00 5/03/2018 $2,000.00 17/07/2018 $150.00 5/03/2018 $2,050.00 18/07/2018 $195.00 5/03/2018 $5,980.00 20/07/2018 $300.00 7/03/2018 $9,050.00 26/07/2018 $1,700.00 12/03/2018 $1,150.00 30/07/2018 $300.00 12/03/2018 $1,900.00 30/07/2018 $600.00 12/03/2018 $2,600.00 1/08/2018 $800.00 22/03/2018 $790.00 1/08/2018 $6,500.00 22/03/2018 $1,950.00 6/08/2018 $4,400.00 22/03/2018 $2,000.00 6/08/2018 $16,000.00 22/03/2018 $2,000.00 13/08/2018 $400.00 1/06/2018 $2,000.00 15/08/2018 $50.00 13/08/2018 $1,500.00 15/08/2018 $550.00 13/08/2018 $12,206.83 22/08/2018 $600.00 13/08/2018 $17,580.01 22/08/2018 $2,450.00 27/08/2018 $140.00 22/08/2018 $2,450.00 27/08/2018 $320.00 29/08/2018 $500.00 27/08/2018 $1,050.00 30/08/2018 $500.00 27/08/2018 $1,750.00 3/09/2018 $300.00 27/08/2018 $2,250.00 5/09/2018 $300.00 31/08/2018 $500.00 6/09/2018 $550.00 31/08/2018 $10,000.00 10/09/2018 $1,000.00 11/09/2018 $451.55 11/09/2018 $1,900.00 12/09/2018 $1,650.00 11/09/2018 $2,100.00 12/09/2018 $1,850.00 11/09/2018 $2,400.00 12/09/2018 $1,950.00 11/09/2018 $2,450.00 12/09/2018 $2,000.00 11/09/2018 $2,500.00 8/10/2018 $800.00 13/09/2018 $250.00 8/10/2018 $1,900.00 21/09/2018 $185.00 25/10/2018 $450.00 21/09/2018 $500.00 29/11/2018 $1,350.00 8/10/2018 $500.00 22/01/2019 $1,600.00 18/10/2018 $344.00 30/01/2019 $597.95 8/11/2018 $13,000.00 30/01/2019 $1,000.00 14/11/2018 $6,000.00 30/01/0019 $1,000.00 19/11/2018 $5,000.00 11/03/2019 $500.00 19/11/2018 $5,000.00 5/03/2019 $400.00 20/11/2018 $1,300.00 20/02/2019 $1,100.00 21/11/2018 $18,800.00 15/02/2019 $450.00 21/11/2018 $3,000.00 11/02/2019 $500.00 17/12/2018 $9,000.00 6/02/2019 $550.00 4/02/2019 $350.00

Total $109,087.14 Total $117,519.00 Grand Total $226,606.14

1. A summary of the cash and electronic funds transfer deposits which the Prosecution asserted formed the basis of the Sequence 11 charge of deal with property proceeds of crime ($80,064.85) contrary to s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), preferred against Ms Ritter, was as follows: - Rahela Ritter CBA Account No: XXX 112 Date Amount 1/05/2018 $500.00 6/05/2018 $450.00 26/05/2018 $1,700.00 29/05/2018 $2,000.00 2/06/2018 $3,000.00 2/06/2018 $2,000.00 2/06/2018 $1,000.00 5/06/2018 $20.00 5/06/2018 $600.00 7/06/2018 $3,500.00 10/06/2018 $1,000.00 12/06/2018 $1,000.00 12/06/2018 $1,000.00 12/06/2018 $1,000.00 12/06/2018 $69.00 14/06/2018 $2,000.00 16/06/2018 $3,300.00 20/06/2018 $3,000.00 21/06/2018 $750.00 23/06/2018 $60.00 23/06/2018 $700.00 24/06/2018 $500.00 24/06/2018 $2,000.00 25/06/2018 $470.00 26/06/2018 $48.00 26/06/2018 $100.00 27/06/2018 $1,000.00 29/06/2018 $2,900.00 29/06/2018 $2,900.00 3/07/2018 $3,000.00 6/07/2018 $72.00 10/07/2018 $100.00 10/07/2018 $181.00 11/07/2018 $1,000.00 11/07/2018 $800.00 15/07/2018 $150.00 21/07/2018 $2,000.00 22/07/2018 $150.00 23/07/2018 $685.00 24/07/2018 $100.00 24/07/2018 $500.00 24/07/2018 $404.85 28/07/2018 $1,450.00 2/08/2018 $500.00 7/08/2018 $200.00 24/08/2018 $2,000.00 24/08/2018 $1,000.00 26/08/2018 $5,000.00 9/09/2018 $3,100.00 10/09/2018 $700.00 20/09/2018 $4,000.00 21/09/2018 $500.00 22/09/2018 $1,000.00 22/09/2018 $510.00 16/10/2018 $750.00 17/10/2018 $1,300.00 26/10/2018 $4,500.00 27/10/2018 $1,000.00 28/10/2018 $3,000.00 2/11/2018 $245.00 4/11/2018 $600.00 20/11/2018 $1,000.00

The Search Warrant Video

1. The search warrant video (Exhibit 3) depicted the locating, photographing and, in some cases, seizure of the following items, the complete list of which was tendered into evidence as Exhibit 4: - Upon Ms Ritter (a) Cash in the sum of $1,350.00; (b) White iPhone with pink case; Lounge room (c) Black Samsung phone with charger on the lounge; (d) Mounties Club membership card on the lounge; Lounge room (white container on corner table) (e) Cash in the sum of $1,635.00; (f) Receipts for cash deposited at Cabramatta at 7.54 p.m. on 11.9.2018 in the amounts of $2,000.00, $1,950.00, $1,650.00 and $1,850.00; (g) Micro SIM card; (h) A rubber band Bedroom 1 (i) iPhone XS in a box; Bedroom 1 Bedside table (top drawer) (j) Cash in the sum of $5,070.00 (k) Two rubber bands; (l) Westlink M7 toll notice addressed to Ms Ritter dated 29.8.2018; (m) Receipt for clothes purchased for $110.00 cash; (n) Receipt for clothes dated 3.10.2018 purchased for $110.00 cash; Bedroom 1 (o) One Louis Vuitton bag containing: - a. Four Samsung phones; b. Two iPhones; c. One brand new Samsung Galaxy Note 9 in a box; d. One rubber band; (p) iPhone XS locked with Afterpay messages on it; (q) ANZ Bank receipt for pensioner advantage account evidencing a withdrawal of $6,800.00 on 2.8.2018; (r) Gucci hat on tall boy; (s) New clothing with tags including Tommy Hilfiger and Nike; Master Bedroom (t) Seven Gucci and one Louis Vuitton shopping bags on bedroom floor containing: - a. Gucci children's pants; b. Louis Vuitton shoes; c. Gucci sweatshirt in box; d. Gucci jacket in box with tag; e. Gucci children's pants and jacket in boxes; f. Gucci shoes, shirts and clothes in boxes; g. Assorted Nike and Adidas clothing with tags in shopping bags; (u) Passport of Mr Daniel Ritter; (v) Two Romanian passports of Ms Rahela Ritter; (w) One Australian child's passport; (x) Receipts bearing the name of Ms Rahela Ritter: - a. Gucci children's pants - $325.00 - payment by Visa card; b. Louis Vuitton women's shoes - $1,830.00 - paid by cash 26.9.2018; c. Gucci women's shoes ($730.00) and sweatshirt ($1,280.00) - cash paid - $3,150.00 on 26.9.2018; d. Louis Vuitton - $2,315.00 - paid by Mastercard on 21.9.2018; e. Gucci clothing - $1,760.00 - paid by cash on 6.9.2019; f. Gucci clothing - $3,955.00 - children's shoes, accessories, clothing and jumper - purchased on 9.8.2018; g. Gucci women's shoes, luggage and men's clothing - $5,470.00 - purchased on 21.9.2018; Kitchen (kitchen cupboard above bench - leftmost cupboard at edge of kitchen opening into remainder of premises - bottom shelf) (y) Tissue balled up containing six Suboxone strips and one orange balloon containing 0.96g buprenorphine; (z) 39.2g methylamphetamine in a resealable glad plastic bag with green and yellow seal; (aa) Smaller empty resealable plastic bags inside one larger plastic bags; (bb) Merit Award from Fairfield Public School dated 30.8.2018; (cc) Fairfield Public School homework slip - Term 3 Week 8; (dd) Second set of electronic scales; (ee) CCTV camera; (ff) Phone SIM card; Kitchen (kitchen cupboard above bench - leftmost cupboard at edge of kitchen opening into remainder of premises - top shelf) (gg) Pink computer tablet; (hh) M2 toll notice; (ii) St George bank documents addressed to Mr Daniel Ritter; (jj) Small Gucci shopping bag stored flat; (kk) Receipt from iNext - Four instalments of $560.00 from Mr Daniel Ritter; (ll) Purchase receipt for Nissan Pulsar vehicle; Kitchen (separate kitchen cupboard to where drugs located) (mm) Western Union money transfer receipt - €2,500.00 / $4,000.00 - 27.8.2018; (nn) Western Union money transfer receipt - $4,000.00 - August 2018; (oo) Western Union money transfer receipt - $5,000.00 - sent to Romania; (pp) Western Union money transfer receipt - $6,682.00 - sent to Romania on 27.8.2018; (qq) Western Union money transfer receipt - $4,610.00 - sent to Romania on 27.8.2018; Kitchen benchtop (rr) First set of miniature electronic scales; (ss) Rubber bands in an open bag; (tt) One Samsung Note phone on top of refrigerator; Kitchen drawer (second from top) (uu) Glad resealable bags in two sizes (small and large); (vv) ANZ Bank letter addressed to Mr Daniel Ritter; (ww) ANZ Bank letter addressed to Ms Rahela Ritter; Back room (cupboard on bathroom side) (xx) Shoes with receipt - $465.00 - 10.7.2018; (yy) Receipt for cash payment - $780.00; (zz) 30 - 50 clothing items in cupboard - Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss - many brand new with tags attached; (aaa) Pink Prada handbag Timmy: (bbb) Brown Louis Vuitton handbag; (ccc) 10 - 20 Nike and Adidas shoe boxes with brand new shoes; (ddd) Gucci shoes in box; (eee) Receipt for cash payment purchase of shoes - $150.00 - 11.8.2018; (fff) Receipt for Burberry watch - $271.00; (ggg) Louis Vuitton shoes; (hhh) Shopping bags of various clothing items with tags attached - $100.00 items; (iii) Two Philipp Plein shirts - $400.00 each with tags attached; (jjj) White shopping bag with multiple Philipp Plein T-shirts with tags attached; (kkk) One Philipp Plein shirt with no tag attached; (lll) Gucci receipt dated 6.9.2018; Back room (cupboard on opposite side) (mmm) Multiple shopping bags with clothing items and with tags attached - $50.00 to $100.00 items - Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein; (nnn) Westfield (Parramatta) receipt for $500 .00 paid in cash on 16.8.2018; (ooo) White with red logo shirt - $400.00; (ppp) Louis Vuitton shopping bag containing black leather boots in box and receipt - $2,760.00 - purchased on 9.8.2018; (qqq) Baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire - leaning against a wall behind a white board; Search of vehicle / front yard (rrr) Netgear camera; and (sss) CCTV camera on carport pole facing front yard.

The Search Warrant Video and Transcript

1. The search warrant video (Exhibit 3) and the search warrant video transcript (Exhibit 5) were relied upon by the Prosecution on the basis that there were responses and demeanour based observations on the part of Ms Ritter which were said to be inculpatory. The salient features of the transcript are as follows: - 1. To the question, "So do you have any large sums of cash?", she responded "Yeah" [p. 6]; 2. To the question, "Is this your money?", in relation to $1,350.00 cash in her possession, she responded "Yeah" [p. 6] and that "Yesterday he get the pension" [p. 7]; 3. To the question, "do you have any drugs in the house that you want to tell me about?", she responded, "No" [p. 7]; 4. She agreed that premises at which they had resided in the past had previously been searched by police and that a gun had been located under the house on that occasion; 5. She was informed, and agreed that she understood, that this search was for drugs, scales, drug paraphernalia ice, heroin, ledgers, mobile phones, cash and anything associated with drug supply [pp. 6, 10]; 6. She had been residing at the premises for about three months [p. 12]; 7. Bedroom 1 was her son's bedroom [p. 13]; 8. Bedroom 2 (the master bedroom) was the room in which she stayed with her partner [Mr Asanovic] [p. 14]; 9. To the question, "do you have any other … cash anywhere in the house…?", she responded, "I don't know" [p. 16]; 10. When cash was located, she was unable to answer the question as to how much money there was, because she was unable to remember. She conceded that it was her money and that she got it from the "pension" [p. 18]; 11. She agreed that she had taken money out from an ATM yesterday but did not know which ATM it was [p. 19]; 12. She was unable to recall what time she withdrew the money [p. 20]; 13. She did not keep the ATM withdrawal slip [p. 20]; 14. She did not know her account details [p. 20]; 15. She agreed that she used a key card to withdraw the money but did not know where the card was [p. 20]; 16. She stated that she received money from her mother-in-law the day before but was unable to remember how much money she received [p. 22], despite her mother-in-law having arrived at the premises part-way through the execution of the search warrant and remaining thereafter [p. 48]; 17. In relation to the Mounties Club membership card in the name of Chi Phan located in the living room, she stated that she found it on or about 22 September 2018, next to a park nearby [p. 34]; 18. In relation to a mobile phone found beside the Mounties Club membership card, she stated that it was not her phone and did not know to whom it belonged [p. 33]; 19. She declined to answer questions about the high-end Gucci shoes, children's pants which evidenced substantial purchase sums and contemporaneous dates but, more particularly, the receipts for which bore her sole name and address [pp. 38, 39, 42]; 20. She denied knowledge of the methylamphetamine located in the bottom shelf of the kitchen cupboard, stating that she did not know what it was, did not know anything about it, and had never seen it before [p. 52]; 21. She denied knowledge of the electronic scales located in plain view on the kitchen benchtop, stating that she had seen them there, but "I don't know"; they did not belong to her, nor did they belong to Mr Daniel Asanovic and she did not know who put the scales there [pp. 52, 53]; 22. To the question, "How often do you use this kitchen area?", she responded, "I cook here, I clean here, I, the fridge" [p. 53]; 23. She stated that she had not seen the empty resealable plastic bags also found in the same location, beside the resealable plastic bag containing the methylamphetamine [p. 53]; 24. She did not know when she had last opened that kitchen cupboard [p. 53]; 25. She denied using that area of the kitchen [p. 53]; 26. She did not know what to think of the electronic scales found in situ [p. 53]; 27. As to the Merit Award from Fairfield Public School dated 30.8.2018 and the Fairfield Public School homework slip for Term 3 Week 8 found in the same cupboard, she agreed that she had put both items in the cupboard [p. 53]; (bb) In relation to the bag in which the methylamphetamine was located, the electronic scales and to the question, "Are your fingerprints or DNA going to be on any of those items", she responded, "No. No. This. I don't think so" [p. 54] although, she attempted to explain that, "Maybe when I clean…" [p. 55]; and (cc) She agreed that the Nissan Pulsar (purchased in cash in 2016 for $10,000.00) was her car [p. 61].

Photos

1. Some 154 photos were tendered into evidence as part of the Exhibit 1 tender bundle. These were of the items seized, and their location within the premises, during the search warrant.

Close of the Prosecution case

1. At the close of the Prosecution case, I found a prima facie case in respect of all charges. Neither Defendant gave evidence and, as referred to earlier, no adverse inference is to be drawn.

Consideration

1. This was not the first occasion on which a search warrant had been executed (at premises occupied by the defendants) and illicit items had been found. To suggest that Ms Ritter did not know whether there was cash or drugs within the home, when considering they were not stored in a clandestine way but, rather, easily accessible and, for the most part, in the open, defied belief. Her answers in the search warrant video, to the effect that she did not know where her key card was, that she could not remember what time she withdrew money from an ATM the day before, that she did not know which ATM she withdrew the money from, and that she was unable to remember how much money she received from her mother-in-law the day before (despite her mother-in-law having arrived at the premises part-way through the execution of the search warrant and remaining thereafter) were evasive and unpersuasive.
2. The multitude of receipts for high-end goods purchased (for the most part, in cash) in person at the Gucci and Louis Vuitton stores in Sydney all bore her full name and address. There appeared to be a regularity in her purchases from these and like stores, not only for herself but also for her 10-year-old child. On its own, this was insufficient to sheet home any impropriety to her. The lifestyle choice associated with purchasing high-end goods from such stores might, at first blush, appear ordinary to some, questionable or odd to others and, in some cases, even suspicious, when considering what the Court viewed to be the Defendants' limited financial means. That, however, is not the test. One's personal views as to lifestyle choices, nor indeed any suspicion or speculation associated therewith, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. After all, the Prosecution's case, as I understood it, was predicated on the basis that the recklessly deal with proceeds of crime and unlawfully obtained goods in personal custody charges arose from unexplained wealth attributable to the crime of drug supply, as opposed to some other crime.
3. Her denial of knowledge of the two different sets of electronic scales, one found in plain view on the kitchen benchtop and the other found on the same bottom shelf and in the same kitchen cupboard in which the methylamphetamine was located, was unconvincing. Given the modest size of the kitchen, I rejected her assertion that she knew nothing about the drugs or the two sets of electronic scales, especially in light of the fact that, on her own account, she cooked meals in and cleaned the kitchen and the nearby refrigerator regularly. I also rejected her assertion that she did not use that part of the kitchen, especially since the microwave oven was situated immediately beneath the cupboard shelf in which the drugs and paraphernalia were found and in light of her concurrence that she had placed what appeared to be her son's Merit Award from Fairfield Public School dated 30.8.2018 and the Fairfield Public School homework slip for Term 3 Week 8 in the same cupboard. The search warrant video made it clear that Ms Ritter's child resided at the premises. Indeed, the microwave oven was also located immediately to the left of the further electronic scales and open packet of rubber bands on the kitchen benchtop. This was not hidden from sight and her responses disavowing any knowledge of these items, including her denial of the presence of her fingerprints or DNA on the bag in which the drugs were found, could not be believed. Her attempt to pre-empt any inculpatory findings by indicating that the presence of her fingerprints or DNA on the drugs or paraphernalia might have been due to her cleaning was, much in the same vein, an after-the-fact attempt to explain away wrongdoing.
4. The bank statements of Mr Asanovic revealed a number of deposits and withdrawals in the thousands of dollars and for commensurate amounts, respectively, including in respect of international money transfers, as I read them, to persons or family in Romania. Some deposits appear to have been made into the account by family members (Ms Ecaterina Ritter) and no doubt others (including the two Defendants themselves) and appear to have been made in lump sum cash deposits at various ATM handy banks at suburban branches. I was also alive to the fact that names, reference numbers and words added to deposits made, so as to appear on bank statements later, are notoriously unreliable or can often be designed to legitimise otherwise suspicious transactions. More importantly, though, the style of deposits and withdrawals continued in much the same manner, after the execution of the search warrant and charges laid on 4 October 2018, well into October, November and December 2018.
5. If the moneys deposited into the Defendants' accounts were, indeed, the proceeds of crime as alleged, it is doubtful that the Defendants would have continued to engage in the same criminal conduct asserted by the Prosecution, and depositing moneys derived from the sale of drugs in the same manner, in the weeks and months immediately following the laying of the charges.
6. It is easy to succumb to the theory that simply because one's account is styled "pensioner advantage account" or one's customer account information records held by a bank suggest that a person is "unemployed", there is, therefore, a greater likelihood that the transactions evidencing thousands of dollars being deposited and withdrawn (over and above what appeared to be ordinary, day-to-day living expenses also apparent on the face of the statements) were of a nefarious kind. In my view, something more was required to satisfactorily draw that inference to the requisite criminal standard, at least insofar as the charges relating to dealing with proceeds of crime for those sums of money deposited into the Defendants' bank accounts.
7. To the extent that the Prosecution sought to rely on the appellation "unemployed" appearing in the customer banking records, insofar as it related to Mr Daniel Asanovic, this, I found, was too equivocal and insufficient to taint those moneys as the proceeds of drug supply or to exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. It may be that the deposits were derived from the provision of goods or services in which one or both of the Defendants were engaged and even in respect of which federal income tax might not have been paid. For example, there were entries which were referenced with the words "paint house work, labour work house, final reno payment" which left open the suggestion that Mr Asanovic may have performed certain services in the nature of renovations for which he was paid via electronic funds transfer. Either way, this was inconclusive. Given that many of the deposits were made on the same day, incrementally $50.00 or $100.00 more than their predecessor, it may be that the structuring of the multiple cash deposits was an attempt to avoid triggering the mandatory reporting obligations under the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth). That, however, was not the case advanced by the Prosecution and it would take an impermissible leap of faith to draw a nexus of criminal impropriety of the kind asserted based on the circumstantial evidence adduced to that end. Whilst there was a suspicion open on an analysis of the records, that, of course, could not take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It may also mean that the Australian Taxation Office might take an active interest in the provenance of the moneys deposited into the Defendants' accounts and, if satisfied that the wealth lacks sufficient explanation, exercise its wide-arching powers to issue Notices of Re-assessment to one or both. That, however, is not a matter for this Court.
8. The 154 photos of the items seized during the search warrant included receipts from Gucci and Louis Vuitton, high-end label clothing, shoes, handbags, watches, money seized, the premises, a Centrelink income statement in the name of Ms Ritter, bank statements, deposit and withdrawal slips, drugs seized, small and large sandwich bags, miniature size bags, the kitchen cupboard in which the drugs were located, electronic scales in situ, Western Union overseas money transfer receipts (particularly to Romania) and by senders whose names differ from those of the Defendants, NRMA green slip renewal, receipt for rental payment for the four-week period 15 July 2018 to 11 August 2018 at $560.00 per week, M2 toll notice in the name of Ms Ritter, Cash Stop Gold lay-by payment receipt, dietary supplements, the front page of an incomplete and unsigned Residential Tenancy Agreement bearing the names of the both Defendants and "Nezvat Asanovic" (Mr Asanovic's father) as tenants for the six-month period between 17 June 2018 and 17 December 2018 at $570.00 per week, 11 mobile phones (including one brand-new mobile phone in a box) and a baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire.
9. There were a number of aspects of note in respect of these items.
10. Of the 13 photos depicting receipts from the Gucci and Louis Vuitton stores, 12 of the Gucci and Louis Vuitton receipts all bore the full name (and, in some cases, the full address) of Ms Ritter. Only one of the Louis Vuitton receipts bore the name of Mr Daniel Ritter (Mr Asanovic), although the mobile phone number beneath his name appears to belong to Ms Ritter, which appeared on many of the other receipts.
11. As to the location of the 36.85g of methylamphetamine, this was found on the bottom shelf of the top left kitchen cupboard.
12. Three types of plastic resealable bags were found in the second drawer of the kitchen, namely: - 1. "Home" brand small size freezer bags with no snap lock; 2. "Glad" brand "snack size" (small) plastic snap lock resealable bags (60 pack); and 3. "Glad" brand "sandwich size" (large) plastic snap lock resealable bags (100 pack).
13. The methylamphetamine was found in a "Glad" brand "snack size" (small) plastic snap lock resealable bag which bore the same distinguishing features as the unused bags in the 60 pack box in the drawer, namely: - 1. They were identical in size; 2. They bore an identical outer print which read "Glad Snap Lock Pinch and Slide" with the symbols of a white facing arrow and hand on the left and a padlock on the right; 3. The snap lock seal was identical in colour, with a bold green and thin yellow stripe; and 4. The lip was identical in colour, with a green and thin yellow stripe.
14. As stated earlier, two sets of electronic scales were found. One set was found in a prominent position on the kitchen bench. The other was found in the same kitchen cabinet in which the drugs and school records were located. Neither of these appear to be scales used in the weighing of food or additives as part of any cooking processes. I was satisfied, as a finding of fact, that their proximity to the items referred to, particularly the large quantity of miniature plastic resealable bags with a blue snap lock seal found immediately beside the methylamphetamine, was indicative of a process of drug supply.
15. I was satisfied, as a finding of fact, that the direct physical evidence of both Defendants' DNA on the exterior seal portion of the Glad snap lock bag in which the methylamphetamine was stored was indicative of a process of drug supply but also of joint possession. The strength of this evidence, and indeed my conclusion as a finding of fact, was not vitiated by any contention that the DNA was of at least two contributors being the two Defendants. Any suggestion, for example, that the drugs might have belonged to Mr Daniel Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) was fanciful and ignored the surrounding circumstances.
16. Whilst Mr Daniel Asanovic's father, perchance, happened to be present when the search warrant was executed, he was not, to my mind, an occupier of the premises. Whilst he may have been a visitor, I concluded, as a finding of fact, that he was not in any way associated with the improprieties averred as against the Defendants. The location of the front page of an incomplete and unsigned Residential Tenancy Agreement bearing the names of both Defendants and the name of Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic), as tenants for the six-month period between 17 June 2018 and 17 December 2018 at $570.00 per week, could not have been a legitimate lease. It did not bear the name of the landlord. The "premises location" line was left blank. If it did relate to the premises in question, it made little sense that it was in direct contradiction to the legitimate lease entered into with the landlord only a month or so earlier for a six-month period between 20 May 2018 and 20 November 2018 at a rent of $560.00 per week. The one and only St George Bank statement dated 27 July 2018 bearing the name of Mr Nezvat Asanovic and located at the premises during the execution of the search warrant, evidences his address as 4 Bainton Road, Mount Pritchard (incidentally, the same address to which Ms Ritter's Centrelink statement was posted). The entries on his statement reveal the recipt of a Centrelink pension followed by multiple gambling related withdrawals at the Cooks Hill Hotel and TAB at Cabramatta and Mount Pritchard. I was left with the distinct impression that the incomplete and unsigned Residential Tenancy Agreement bearing the names of the both Defendants and the name of Mr Asanovic's father (Mr Nezvat Asanovic) was created, unscrupulously, for reasons unrelated to these proceedings.
17. There was also the direct evidence of the earlier physical surveillance conducted by police, including evidence of a stop, search and seizure of a male found leaving the premises and on whom methylamphetamine, heroin and buprenorphine were located. Whilst no photos of such seizures were tendered into evidence so as to assist in proving a similarity or otherwise in the packaging, purity or type of drug, neither the truthfulness the accuracy of the oral evidence Det Sen Cst Philip Gregorace was impugned to a degree which would put this outside the realms of acceptance. It was, after all, the ongoing surveillance of these premises as a place from which drugs were said to have been dispensed which led to the execution of the search warrant in the first place.
18. The presence of one or more mobile phones, ordinarily, is innocuous. Coupled, though, with the various other strands in the circumstantial line of reasoning, the finding of 11 phones, all of which appear to be late-model smart phones, added strength to the conclusion of supply related impropriety.
19. As to the financial records generally, to suggest that unexplained wealth, via recurrent deposits into, then withdrawals from, the various accounts belonging to the Defendants, was the proceeds of drug supply, overlooks the multitude of hypotheses consistent with innocence, let alone the rarity that cash from raw drug deals is unlikely to ever be deposited directly into one's own bank account in circumstances where that would, in the case of Ms Ritter, for example, a recipient of a Centrelink carer's allowance and pension supplement in the lead up to the execution of the search warrant, raise alarm bells with various authorities.
20. On the other hand, unexplained wealth via the cash found in the premises and in the possession of Ms Ritter during the execution of the search warrant (a total of $8,055.00), is to be assessed against the backdrop of someone whose Centrelink income statement dated 19 July 2018, just over two months before the execution of the search warrant, noted her as being the recipient of modest social security benefits, including a carer payment, energy supplement, pension supplement, carer allowance and, to the extent that she also has a child, Family Tax Benefit A and Family Tax Benefit B.
21. Accepting that there were limitations in the evidence, there was no tangible evidence as to which of the Defendants, or who for the Defendants' benefit, made the deposits into the respective accounts which totalled the sums particularised in the proceeds of crime related charges.
22. If the Prosecution is unable to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the moneys deposited into the bank accounts were the proceeds of drug supply, then it follows, without having to classify the moneys as having come from a legitimate source, that the high-end goods found within the premises cannot be tainted as the proceeds of crime of themselves, notwithstanding the suspicion which attaches to them.
23. Even if I am wrong about the conclusions to which I have arrived, relating to the actual supply of prohibited drugs, I am satisfied that the extended definition of supply and the deeming provisions are enlivened such that the quantity of drug, being more than the traffickable quantity, is deemed to have been in the Defendants' possession for the purpose of supply. Given that the Defendants did not adduce any evidence, any evidentiary onus, on the balance of probabilities, to prove possession for a purpose other than for supply, was not discharged by them.
24. It was not immediately apparent why Ms Ritter (as opposed to Mr Asanovic additionally or alternatively) was charged with possessing a prohibited drug (1.04g of buprenorphine) and possessing a prohibited weapon (baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire). There did not appear to be any independent evidence which sheeted home possession to her rather than to Mr Asanovic. The buprenorphine was found in the same kitchen cupboard in which the methylamphetamine was found and the baseball bat with its head wrapped in barbed wire, which was said to constitute a mace, was found leaning against a wall behind a white board in an open plan area of the house, in the back room. I was satisfied that the remaining elements of the offences referable to these items were proved beyond reasonable doubt. I was not equally satisfied that possession by Ms Ritter, jointly or otherwise, to the exclusion of others, was established to the same standard. In addition, I was unable to glean from the evidence adduced that Ms Ritter made admissions to having purchased the baseball bat herself, as asserted by the Prosecution.
25. Equally, even when making due allowances for circumstantial cases and inferential reasoning, I was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the larger sums of money deposited into the Defendants' bank accounts were the proceeds of crime or, more particularly, as particularised by the Prosecution, the proceeds of drug supply, and, derivatively, nor that recklessness was established to the same high standard in respect of the charges relating to the purchase of the high-end goods. For the same reasons, notwithstanding a somewhat diluted test insofar as goods in custody charge was concerned, whilst custody and possession of the goods were able to be adequately proved beyond reasonable doubt, I was not satisfied to the same high standard that the goods were reasonably suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained, based on the whole of the evidence adduced.
26. For these reasons, cognisant of the cautionary criminal trial directions referred to earlier and the elements of the offences with which each of the Defendants has been charged, I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, and make additional findings of fact as follows: - 1. The 36.85g of methylamphetamine was a prohibited drug; 2. The Defendants jointly possessed the 36.85g of methylamphetamine; 3. The Defendants jointly possessed the 36.85g of methylamphetamine for the purposes of supply; 4. Ms Ritter was materially involved in conducting or assisting in conducting drug premises; 5. The premises the subject of the search warrant were used at various times for the unlawful supply of prohibited drugs, especially when considering the evidence found on the premises of the baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire, being a prohibited or unlawful weapon (despite possession not being able to be attributed to one or both Defendants) and the presence of large amounts of money not accounted for by the Defendants as occupiers; 6. Ms Ritter had knowledge that her child had access to the premises and, indeed, resided at the premises with the Defendants; 7. As a consequence of such access, the child was exposed to a prohibited drug; 8. The Defendants dealt with property, namely, the cash found in the premises and in the possession of Ms Ritter during the execution of the search warrant; 9. There were reasonable grounds to suspect that the cash was property substantially derived from the commission of the offence of supply prohibited drug, being an offence that may be prosecuted on indictment; 10. The value of the property was less than $100,000.00, namely, $8,055.00; 11. There was a wrongful taking and carrying away in the sense of a physical movement of the Mounties Club membership card; 12. Such property belonged to another person; 13. There was an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the card by doing so; 14. It was without the owner's consent; and 15. Given that the card bore the name of not only the establishment which had issued it but also the person to whom it belonged, there would have crystallised a belief on the part of Ms Ritter that the owner could indeed be found, with relative ease.

Verdict

1. For the above reasons, I enter the following verdicts (and make the following orders as the case may be for those charges which were preferred as back-up charges): -

Mr Asanovic Supply prohibited drug (36.85g Seq 1 methylamphetamine): Guilty s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Deal with property proceeds of crime Seq 2 ($8,055.00): Guilty s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime: Seq 3 (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger Not guilty clothing, shoes, bags and watches) s.193B(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Deal with property proceeds of crime Seq 6 ($226,606.14) Not guilty s.193C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Ms Ritter Supply prohibited drug (36.85g Seq 1 methylamphetamine): Guilty s.25(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Possess prohibited drug (36.85g Seq 2 methylamphetamine): Dismissed s.10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Possess prohibited drug (1.04g buprenorphine): Seq 3 s.10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Not guilty (NSW) Possess prohibited weapon: Seq 4 (baseball bat with head wrapped in barbed wire) Not guilty s.7(1) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) Deal with property proceeds of crime Seq 5 ($8,055.00): Guilty s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Recklessly deal with proceeds of crime: Seq 6 (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger Not guilty clothing, shoes, bags and watches) s.193B(3) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Unlawfully obtained goods in personal custody Seq 7 (Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Tommy Hilfiger Not guilty clothing, shoes, bags and watches): s.527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Conduct drug premises and expose child to prohibited drugs (child exposure to drug supply Seq 8 process): Guilty s.36Z(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Larceny by finding (Mounties Club membership Seq 10 card): Guilty s.117 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Deal with property proceeds of crime Seq 11 ($80,064.85): Not guilty s.193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Amendments 25 September 2021 - Formatting amendments DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 25 September 2021