Cultivating an acquittal on Count 2 in the Court of Appeal: Kouvaris, Cirillo & Giannini v The King[2026] SASCA 48
The South Australian Court of Appeal decision in Kouvaris, Cirillo & Giannini v The King [2026] SASCA 48 is a useful case for understanding the limitations of improbability reasoning.
The case involved three men — Messrs. Kouvaris, Cirillo and Giannini — who were convicted by a jury of two counts of cultivating a large commercial quantity of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA).
The charges related to two outdoor cannabis crops found near Coonalpyn in South Australia. The crops were located on the same rural property, about 1.27 kilometres apart.
What Was the Case About?
The prosecution alleged that the three men were involved as “gardeners” in two cannabis crops:
Count 1 related to the first cannabis crop.
Count 2 related to the second cannabis crop.
The prosecution did not allege that the men had set up the crops. The key issue was whether they were involved in tending, nurturing or growing the cannabis plants.
At trial, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including:
surveillance evidence;
phone and vehicle movement evidence;
items found during searches;
soil evidence;
and similarities between the two crop sites.
The jury convicted all three men on both counts.
Was the Appeal Successful?
The appeal was partly successful.
Count 1 — convictions upheld
The appeals against the Count 1 convictions were dismissed.
Count 2 — mixed outcome
The appeals by Mr Kouvaris and Mr Giannini on Count 2 were successful.
The Court of Appeal found that the circumstantial evidence against them on Count 2 was insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Their convictions on Count 2 were:
set aside, and
verdicts of acquittal were entered.
However, Mr Cirillo’s appeal on Count 2 was dismissed. His conviction on Count 2 remained in place.
Why Count 2 Failed for Mr Kouvaris and Mr Giannini
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence against Mr Kouvaris and Mr Giannini on Count 2 was not strong enough.
There was evidence connecting them to Crop 1, but the prosecution also needed to prove their involvement in Crop 2.
The prosecution argued that because the two crops were close together and had similarities, it was unlikely that different gardeners were used for each crop.
That type of reasoning is sometimes called improbability reasoning. In simple terms, it asks:
How likely is it that these were separate operations with different people involved?
The majority of the Court accepted that this kind of reasoning was legally available. However, when it came to Mr Kouvaris and Mr Giannini, the Court found that the evidence still did not go far enough to prove involvement in Crop 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, their Count 2 convictions were unreasonable and could not stand.
Why Mr Cirillo’s Count 2 Conviction Stayed in Place
Mr Cirillo was in a different position. The Court found there was additional evidence relevant to him, including evidence concerning an earlier cannabis cultivation at a different property. The Court held that this evidence was admissible and could be used in assessing his involvement.
For Mr Cirillo, the majority found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on Count 2. His appeal on Count 2 was therefore dismissed.
A Clear Reminder
Kouvaris, Cirillo & Giannini v The King shows that circumstantial evidence can be powerful, but it has limits.
The prosecution must prove each count against each accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Where the evidence does not meet that standard, a conviction cannot stand.
It shows that courts will carefully scrutinise circumstantial evidence in criminal cases. It also shows that evidence may be strong enough against one accused person but not another, even where they are charged together.
In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld some convictions, but set aside others — making it an important decision for anyone interested in how criminal appeals and circumstantial evidence operate in South Australia.
This OYBlog was created with AI assistance based on the following source: Kouvaris, Cirillo & Giannini v The King [2026] SASCA 48