Legal Research
Cases
Castagna v The Queen

Castagna v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 181 23 August 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Castagna v R [2012] NSWCCA 181
Hearing dates: 14 October 2011
Decision date: 23 August 2012
Before: McClellan CJ at CL
Latham J
Harrison J
Decision:
Appeal against conviction dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - supply of more than a large commercial quantity - deemed supply - whether trial judge erred in refusing to sever count 2 - whether trial judge erred in refusing to direct a verdict - whether trial judge erred in directions to the jury - whether unreasonable verdict
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297R v Serratore [1999] NSWCCA 377
R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
R v Nguyen [2010] HCA 38; (2010) 85 ALJR 8
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Alexander Robert Castanga - (Applicant)
Regina - (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel
M Ramage QC - (Applicant)
P Ingram SC - (Respondent)
Solicitors
Jeffreys Lawyers - (Applicant)
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2007/13252
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-09-10 00:00:00

Before:

PR Zahra SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/13252

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : I agree with Latham J. In particular having myself reviewed all of the relevant evidence I do not doubt that the appellant was rightly convicted.

LATHAM J : The appellant was found guilty by a jury on 10 September 2009 of three offences, namely, (Count 1) supply not less than a large commercial quantity of a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine), (Count 2) supply a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) and (Count 3) possess money being the proceeds of crime ($129,650).

The appellant appeals against his conviction on counts 1 and 2 on the basis that the verdicts are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. An additional ground in relation to count 2 alleges error in the trial judge's refusal to separate count 2 from count 1, error in refusing to direct a verdict in respect of count 2, and error in directing the jury that the presence of methylamphetamine in a wardrobe in the appellant's home (the subject of count 2) was capable of supporting the evidence of the principal Crown witness (Dow). There is no appeal against conviction in respect of count 3 and there is no appeal against sentence.

In summary, the Crown case consisted of the evidence of a Mr Dow, a flight attendant, who was allegedly instructed by the appellant to transport amounts of methylamphetamine from Sydney to Perth and to remit amounts of money in payment for the drugs from Perth to Sydney by way of return flights. Count 1 alleged the supply by the appellant between 1 June 2004…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Castagna v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Castagna v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 181
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 181
Decision Date: 23 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Castagna v The Queen involved the appellant, Castagna, appealing against his conviction and sentence for various drug-related offences. The dispute centred around the interpretation and application of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, specifically in relation to the charge of supply of a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The key legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to sever a particular count from the others, whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal, whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury, and whether the verdict was unreasonable. The appellant argued that the trial judge's refusal to sever the count in question had prejudiced him, as the evidence pertaining to that count was prejudicial and should not have been considered alongside the other counts. Additionally, the appellant contended that the trial judge should have directed a verdict of acquittal on certain counts due to insufficient evidence. The appellant further argued that the trial judge's directions to the jury were misconceived and that the verdict was unreasonable given the evidence presented.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to sever the count, as the evidence was relevant and properly before the jury. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal, as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and did not prejudice the appellant. Finally, the court determined that the verdict was not unreasonable, as it was supported by the evidence and the jury's findings.

No further orders were made by the court, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Orders