P Byrne SC/M Crawford-Fish (Appellant) M A Wigney SC (Crown)
SOLICITORS:
Gells Lawyers (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
05/11/0769
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Murrell SC DCJ
2006/5315
GILES JA HULME J HISLOP J
Tuesday 18 December 2007
Mendoza GERMAKIAN v REGINA
Judgment
THE COURT:
Introduction
1 On 22 September 2006 the appellant was convicted, following a trial before Murrell SC DCJ and jury, of importing goods into Australia to which s 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, to wit, prohibited imports consisting of a quantity of cocaine being not less than the commercial quantity applicable to cocaine.
2 The appellant has appealed against conviction. The notice of appeal was filed a few days out of time. The Crown took no objection to an extension of time being granted by the Court for the filing of the notice of appeal. An extension of time should be granted in the circumstances.
3 The short facts giving rise to the charge were that on 18 May 2005 the appellant had flown into Sydney Kingsford Smith airport from Jamaica and was apprehended whilst carrying a suit bag containing two packages of cocaine sewn into its linings through Customs.
4 The appellant made various admissions, with the result that the only real issue at the trial was whether the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew that his baggage contained a quantity of the prohibited import and that he therefore intended to import the cocaine.
The evidence at the trial
5 The evidence at the trial was summarised in the Crown’s written submissions. No objection was taken to the summary which was as follows:
“On 26 April 2005 a return airline ticket from Sydney to Jamaica via Los Angeles was booked in the appellant’s name. The outward flight was on 5 May 2005 and the return flight on 17 May 2005 - though this was subsequently changed to 18 May 2005. The ticket was paid for in cash…
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 Germakian v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Germakian v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 373
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 373
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Germakian v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Germakian, appealed against his conviction for drug importation. The conviction was made in the Supreme Court of Queensland, and the appeal was brought before the High Court to determine the validity of the lower court's decision.
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the evidence presented during the trial and the application of the law to that evidence. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Germakian was involved in the importation of drugs. The appeal also raised questions about the admissibility of certain evidence and the trial judge's directions to the jury.
The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and properly instructed the jury. The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court found that the trial process was fair and that there were no errors in the handling of the evidence or in the judge's instructions to the jury. Consequently, Germakian's appeal was unsuccessful, and his conviction for drug importation was maintained.