Arnautovic v The King (No 3)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0335

DRAGAN ARNAUTOVIC	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17, 18, 19 June 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 June 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Arnautovic v The King (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 355

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Referral of questions pursuant to s 319A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 – Answers to questions concerning conduct of applicant’s legal practitioner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Connolly	Slades & Parsons Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis KC and Ms A Martin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Chief Commissioner of Police	Mr J Bayly	Victorian Government Solicitors Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary of prosecution case on applicant’s trial....................................................................... 5

Summary of prosecution evidence on applicant’s trial.............................................................. 6

The defence case on the trial.......................................................................................................... 13

Evidence on hearing of referred questions................................................................................. 14

Gobbo relationship with police and role in acting for applicant.......................................... 15

Question 1.......................................................................................................................................... 17

Question 2.......................................................................................................................................... 18

Question 3.......................................................................................................................................... 27

Reid conflict?................................................................................................................................ 29
Jackson conflict?.......................................................................................................................... 29
Person 2 conflict?......................................................................................................................... 30

Question 4.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Question 5.......................................................................................................................................... 34

Question 6.......................................................................................................................................... 39

Question 7.......................................................................................................................................... 40

Solicitor 1’s role in respect of applicant................................................................................... 40
Solicitor 1’s role in respect of Jackson...................................................................................... 41
Solicitor 1’s role in respect of Person 2..................................................................................... 42
Solicitor 1’s role in respect of Reid............................................................................................ 42

Question 8.......................................................................................................................................... 43

Questions 8 (a) and (b)............................................................................................................... 44
Question 8 (c)............................................................................................................................... 45
Question 8 (d).............................................................................................................................. 45
Question 8 (e)............................................................................................................................... 45
Question 8 (f)............................................................................................................................... 47
Question 8 (g)............................................................................................................................... 47
Question 8 (h).............................................................................................................................. 47

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 18 November 1997, the applicant and Darren Jackson (‘Jackson’) were arrested in the course of a ‘buy/bust’ operation by the Drug Squad of Victoria Police.

The applicant was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of heroin between 11 September 1997 and 18 November 1997. It was alleged that the quantity of heroin trafficked by the applicant weighed between 700 grams and 1,000 grams.

Jackson was charged with trafficking in a commercial quantity of heroin between 22 October 1997 and 18 November 1997. It was alleged that the quantity of heroin trafficked by Jackson weighed 252.7 grams.

On about 17 September 1998, Jackson pleaded guilty to that charge. On 8 October 1998, he was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months.

After a contested committal hearing, on 25 June 1998 the applicant was committed for trial in the County Court of Victoria. The trial commenced on 31 August 1999. The applicant was represented by Mr Damian Sheales and Ms Nicola Gobbo (‘Gobbo’) of counsel. On 27 September 1999, the applicant was convicted by the jury empanelled on his trial. On 13 October 1999, he was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal against…

The case of Arnautovic v The King (No 3) involved the applicant, who was seeking leave to appeal a criminal conviction. The applicant sought to have specific questions referred to the High Court under section 319A of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. The questions pertained to the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioner during the trial. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the questions met the criteria for referral under the statute.

The legal issues before the court included whether the questions posed by the applicant were of sufficient public importance to warrant referral to the High Court and whether the questions raised issues that were necessary for the proper administration of justice. The court also considered whether the questions pertained to the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioner and whether these issues had a direct bearing on the applicant's conviction.

The High Court found that the questions did not meet the threshold for referral. The court held that the questions did not concern matters of general legal principle or the interpretation of a statute that would significantly impact the administration of justice. Furthermore, the court determined that the issues raised were more appropriately addressed through the existing appeals process rather than by referral under section 319A. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the referral of questions.

The court's decision was based on its assessment of the public importance and necessity of the questions raised. It concluded that the questions did not meet the statutory criteria and that the applicant's recourse remained through the appellate process. The High Court's dismissal of the application and referral effectively upheld the original conviction.

Continue reading Arnautovic v The King (No 3)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established