Pubdate: Sun, 19 Dec 2004
Source: Dominion Post, The (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2004 The Dominion Post
Contact:  http://www.dompost.co.nz
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2550

SUPREME COURT REJECTS WELLINGTON MAN'S CANNABIS CASE APPEAL

In its first substantive criminal decision, the Supreme Court has
upheld a Court of Appeal ruling that a Wellington man failed to
convince a jury 100 marijuana plants he possessed were not for the
purpose of selling.

Fiso Tovio Siloata, 28, was found guilty of possessing cannabis for
supply by a jury in Wellington District Court in October 2003.

Siloata admitted possessing more than 28 grams of cannabis but
maintained it was for his own use and to give to his friends.

He appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal which dismissed his
appeal.

Siloata then took his case to the Supreme Court on the basis that in
summing up to the jury, the trial judge had been ambiguous and the
jury may not have appreciated it had to be unanimous in its rejection
of Siloata's defence.

Judge Neville Jaine had told the jury they could arrive at three
possibilities.

The first was accepting the defence which would lead to a verdict of
not guilty and the second was rejecting the defence which would lead
to a guilty verdict.

"The third possible conclusion is that you cannot decide one way or
the other whether the defence contention is more likely than not to be
true. If that is so, then again he has not rebutted the resumption and
he should be found guilty," Judge Jaine told the jury.

In his submission, defence lawyer Robert Lithgow said a unanimous
decision by the jury that they could not decide whether Siloata
possessed the drug for supply was not the same as a lack of unanimity
where some jury members believed he had proved his innocence and
others did not.

The Supreme Court dismissed Siloata's appeal.

It said while the Court of Appeal "erred in law" in its ruling that
the Siloata failed to satisfy all jury members that the drugs were for
supply, Judge Jaine's summing up did not mislead the jury.

"No miscarriage of justice resulted from what the judge said," the
Supreme Court ruled.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek