Legal Research
Cases
Czako v R

Czako v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 202 3 August 2015

Appeal

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Czako v R [2015] NSWCCA 202
Hearing dates: 2 July 2014
Date of orders: 03 August 2015
Decision date: 03 August 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
McCallum J at [3]
Decision:
To the extent that leave to appeal is required, leave is granted except in respect of ground 9. The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – evidence – whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence – whether trial judge erred in directions to jury – whether trial miscarried where Crown addressed jury in closing on a point not put to the applicant in cross-examination – whether evidence should have been excluded under s 90 of the Evidence Act – whether trial judge erred in admission of evidence from police expert on illicit drug trade – whether trial judge erred in failing to give a warning as to the potential unreliability of police expert’s evidence under s 165 of the Evidence Act
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 12
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93S, 93T, 193B
Crimes Amendment (Consorting and Organised Crime) Act 2012 (No 3)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 90, 137, 165
Cases Cited: Browne v Dunn [1989] VR 845
Clarke v R [2014] NSWCCA 236
El Haddad v R [2015] NSWCCA 10
Ex parte Coffey; Re Evans & anor [1971] 1 NSWLR 434
Golossian v R [2013] NSWCCA 311
Keller v R [2006] NSWCCA 204
Libke v R [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
M v R [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Nasrallah v R [2015] NSWCCA 188
R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Smith v R [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tamas Czako (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Dr B Glennon (applicant)
Ms T Smith (respondent)
Solicitors:
David H Cohen & Co Solicitors (applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/143786
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

7 March 2013

Before:

Tupman DCJ

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with McCallum J.
HARRISON J: I agree with McCallum J.
McCALLUM J: Tamas Czako was arraigned in the District Court on an indictment containing one count of participation in a criminal group contrary to s 93T(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and one count of money laundering contrary to s 193B(2) of the Act. He pleaded not guilty to each count and was tried before Tupman DCJ with a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in respect of each count. This is an appeal against those convictions.
The applicant relies on nine grounds of appeal, rehearsing many of the issues contested at trial. Some of the grounds involve questions of fact and leave is required in respect…

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 Czako v R

Details

AGLC: Czako v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 202
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date: 03 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal against conviction by Czako, who had been found guilty of various drug-related offences. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, and whether the trial judge made any errors in directing the jury. The appellant argued that the trial miscarried when the Crown addressed the jury on a point not put to him in cross-examination, and that certain pieces of evidence should have been excluded under section 90 of the Evidence Act. The appellant also submitted that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence from a police expert on the illicit drug trade and in failing to warn the jury about the potential unreliability of this expert's evidence under section 165 of the Evidence Act.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the appellant. It examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and the evidence presented, including the expert evidence. The court held that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported by evidence, and that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury. The court found that there was no miscarriage of justice where the Crown addressed the jury on a point not put to the appellant in cross-examination, as the matter was within the scope of the appellant's evidence in chief. The court also held that the evidence in question was not excluded under section 90 of the Evidence Act, and that the trial judge did not err in admitting the police expert's evidence. The court found that while the trial judge should have given a warning about the potential unreliability of the expert's evidence under section 165 of the Evidence Act, this did not affect the safety of the verdict.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld. The court held that the trial judge's failure to give a warning about the potential unreliability of the expert's evidence did not amount to a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence was largely supported by other evidence in the case. The court concluded that the verdict was safe and should not be disturbed on appeal.

Orders