[2025] SADC 136

Prosecution: R Counsel: MR G CASALBORE - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Defendant: DOMENIC MESSINEO Counsel: MR O ALI - Solicitor: BTD LAWYERS Hearing Date/s: 18/11/2025 File No/s: DCCRM-24-016976 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment 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 in which it was generated. R v MESSINEO Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2025] SADC 136 Reasons for the Verdict of his Honour Judge Allen 5 December 2025 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRUG OFFENCES The accused is charged with trafficking methylamphetamine. Following a search deemed lawful by another Judge of this Court, police located 20.5 grams of substance containing methylamphetamine on the accused's person, together with other indicia of sale. No evidence was led to rebut the statutory presumption of possession for sale. Verdict: Guilty. Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) ss 32(3), 32(5); Evidence Act 1929 s 34, referred to. -- 1 of 7 -- -- 2 of 7 -- R v MESSINEO [2025] SADC 136 Criminal Overview 1 On an Information dated 9 July 2024, the accused is charged with the following offence: Statement of Charges Count One: Offence Details: Trafficking in a Controlled Drug. (Section 32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act, 1984). Particulars Domenic Messineo on the 23rd day of July 2023 at Hectorville, trafficked in a controlled drug, namely methylamphetamine, knowing or being reckless as to the fact the substance was a controlled drug. … 2 The accused elected for trial by judge alone. For the reasons which follow, I find the accused guilty. The prosecution case 3 At around 8 pm on Sunday, 23 July 2023, the accused was searched by police on Hectorville Road at Hectorville. 4 The lawfulness of that search was unsuccessfully challenged by the accused before another Judge of this Court.1 5 Following the search, police located on the person of the accused a small container containing 20.5 grams of methylamphetamine, a used glass ice pipe, a set of digital scales, $540 in cash and unused plastic resealable bags. 6 The accused’s mobile phone was also seized and subsequently subjected to analysis. 1 R v Messineo Reasons for Ruling of her Honour Judge Dunlop 27 June 2025. -- 3 of 7 -- [2025] SADC 136 2 Elements of the offence Trafficking in a controlled drug 7 The prosecution must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: • The substance is a controlled drug; • The accused knew or was reckless as to the fact that the substance was a controlled drug; • The accused trafficked the substance. Trafficking 8 It was agreed that the quantity in relation to each count was a trafficable quantity. Section 32(5) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) contains a reverse onus provision in relation to proof of the intention to sell. The section states: If, in any proceedings for an offence against subsection (1), (2), (2a) or (3) it is proved that the defendant had possession of a trafficable quantity of a controlled drug, it is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary— (a) in a case where it is alleged that the defendant was taking part in the process of sale of the drug, that the defendant— (i) was acting for the purpose of sale of the drug; and (ii) had the relevant belief concerning the sale of the drug necessary to constitute the offence; or (b) in any other case—that the defendant had the relevant intention concerning the sale of the drug necessary to constitute the offence. Preliminary legal directions 9 It is not necessary for a court having conducted a trial by judge alone to set out the standard directions of which a judge is bound to be aware. However, I remind myself of the following matters. 10 Mr Messineo is presumed innocent unless and until his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This requirement extends to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of an offence. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to show a suspicion of guilty or to demonstrate that he is probably guilty. In making findings of fact, I must rely upon the evidence given by the witnesses and contain in the exhibits. I must apply my common sense. Election not to give evidence 11 Mr Messineo elected not to give evidence in this Court. He was not bound to give evidence. He has the right to decline to give evidence. Because that is his legal right, I must not draw any inference adverse to his or the case he puts forward from the exercise of that right. There may be many reasons he did not give evidence and I must not speculate on those reasons. I bear in mind that it is at all times, for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. -- 4 of 7 -- [2025] SADC 136 3 Agreed facts 12 There are a number of matters not in dispute which I find proven. The following Agreed Facts were admitted into evidence as Exhibit P8: List of Agreed Facts for Trial DCCRM-24-016976: R v Domenic Messineo In accordance with s 34 of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), the following facts are admitted by the accused, Domenic Messineo, without the prosecution being required to lead evidence which establishes these facts: 1. At the time police searched Mr Messineo on Hectorville Road, Hectorville, on Sunday, 23 July 2023, Mr Messineo was in possession of the following items that were seized from him: a. a small container containing 20.5 grams of methylamphetamine (PE0006); b. a used glass ice pipe (PE000); c. a small set of digital scales (PE0003); d. $540 in cash; e. Unused resealable plastic bags (PE0001); and f. Samsung mobile phone (PE0004). 2. Mr Messineo took the photographs and sent the messages contained on the Samsung mobile phone (PE0004) as presented in annexures A and B of the Affidavit of Pablo Liguori dated 23 April 2025. 13 Witness statements were also tendered by consent: WITNESS AFFIDAVITS Folder 1 Ex No. NAME DATE PAGES P1 HENDERSON, David – Annexure A – photographs of exhibits 2 December 2023 20 P2 MARTIN, Kate 24 November 2023 3 P3 LIGUORI, Pablo 4 December 2023 7 P5 MILLARD, Nicholas 3 November 2025 13 P6 MILLARD, Nicholas 12 November 2025 3 P7 FSSA Certificate of Analysis 12 March 2025 2 -- 5 of 7 -- [2025] SADC 136 4 Folder 2 Ex No. NAME DATE PAGES P4 LIGUORI, Pablo - Annexure B – bundle of tagged images - Annexure A – Extraction Report – Google Android Generic 23 April 2025 818 Discreditable conduct 14 The prosecution submitted that certain communications extracted from the mobile telephone of the accused reveal a number of prior drug deals engaged in by the accused.2 15 I find that the messages identified by the prosecution reveal that the accused had engaged in previous, uncharged acts of trafficking methylamphetamine. 16 In the unusual circumstances of this trial, I propose to rely on these previous transactions as being relevant to the accused knowing the substance possessed for the purpose of trafficking was a controlled drug. I do not propose to use this evidence for a propensity purpose pursuant to s 34P(2)(b). 17 For the sake of completeness, I remind myself that I must not impermissibly use this evidence to reason that because the accused has engaged in discreditable conduct previously, that he is the sort of person who traffics in methylamphetamine generally. I have only used this evidence for the specific purpose articulated above. Defence case 18 There was no defence case. Addresses of Counsel Prosecution address 19 In essence, the prosecution submitted that each of the elements of the offence have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, as a consequence of the accused admittedly possessing 20.5 grams of methylamphetamine, with the contents of his mobile telephone demonstrating knowledge that the substance was methylamphetamine and, in the absence of any evidence capable of discharging the statutory presumption in favour of sale, it has been proved that the accused possessed the methylamphetamine with an intention to sell at least some of it. 2 T8-11. -- 6 of 7 -- [2025] SADC 136 5 Defence address 20 Defence counsel declined to address the Court. Consideration 21 The Agreed Facts of themselves are capable of proving each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The unchallenged evidence before the Court is that the accused was possessed of 20.5 grams of methylamphetamine, together with an ice pipe and communications on his phone which are demonstrative of the accused knowing that the substance in his possession was methylamphetamine. 22 In circumstances where the accused has admitted possessing in excess of 2 grams of methylamphetamine, the law presumes at least some of that substance is for sale. 23 In those circumstances, I find each element of the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt. Verdict 24 I find the accused guilty. -- 7 of 7 --