Halac v R - [2015] NSWCCA 121

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Halac v R [2015] NSWCCA 121
Hearing dates: 22 April 2015
Date of orders: 01 June 2015
Decision date: 01 June 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Hall J at [2]
Garling J at [3]
Decision:
(1)Leave to appeal granted.
(2)Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether judge erred in taking into account quantity of drugs located after applicant’s arrest – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether judge erred in assessing applicant’s role in drug syndicate – parity – whether error in assessment of applicant’s role compared to other members in syndicate – CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – whether error in rejecting statement made by applicant to expert – no sworn evidence of applicant – limited weight given to untested, self-serving statements made to experts
Legislation Cited: Criminal Code (Cth)
Cases Cited: House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v KB [2011] NSWCCA 190
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Queen
Sven Halac (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
DG Staehli SC(Crown)
W Abraham QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/131602
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

21 February 2014

Before:

Hock DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/131602

_________________________________________________________

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Garling J.
HALL J: I agree with the reasons and orders proposed by Garling J.
GARLING J: This is an application for leave to appeal in respect of a sentence imposed in the District Court of NSW by her Honour, Judge Hock, on 21 February 2014.
The applicant, Sven Halac, pleaded guilty before Hock DCJ to an indictment on which there was one offence contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth), namely that on 17 March 2011 in Sydney, he:

“… did traffic in a substance … being a controlled drug, namely, methamphetamine and 4-methylmethylamphetamine, and the quantity trafficked being a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and 4-methylmethylamphetamine.”

It will be convenient to refer to this offence as the principal offence.
At the time of sentencing, the applicant admitted a further offence and asked the Court to take that further offence into account in passing sentence on him for the principal offence. That offence was one also contrary to s 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code, namely that he did:

“aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by Sjoerd Rogier Segaar, namely the trafficking in a substance by Sjoerd Rogier Segaar, the substance being a controlled drug, namely methamphetamine and 4-methylmethylamphetamine, and the quantity trafficked by Sjoerd Rogier Segaar, being a commercial quantity …”

It will be convenient to refer to this offence as the schedule offence.
The principal offence related to an occasion on 17 March…

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 Halac v R

Details

AGLC: Halac v R [2015] NSWCCA 121
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date: 01 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Halac v R involved the appellant, Mr Halac, appealing against the sentence he received for drug-related offences. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in considering the quantity of drugs found post-arrest, assessing Mr Halac's role in the drug syndicate, and rejecting a statement he made to an expert witness. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues were whether the trial judge made errors in sentencing by considering the quantity of drugs discovered after Mr Halac's arrest, assessing his role within the drug syndicate, and rejecting a statement he made to an expert witness without sworn evidence. The court also considered the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that Mr Halac's sentence was proportionate to that of other members of the syndicate.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in taking into account the quantity of drugs found after Mr Halac's arrest, as it was relevant to the overall criminal conduct. The court determined that the judge appropriately assessed Mr Halac's role in the syndicate, despite the absence of direct evidence, based on the totality of the circumstances. Regarding the expert witness statement, the court held that while the statement was not sworn, it was not entirely without merit and could be considered, albeit with limited weight. The court concluded that the trial judge's assessment of Mr Halac's role in the syndicate, compared to others, was not erroneous.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the appropriate penalty.

Orders