Imad Lakkis v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 208

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0214

IMAD LAKKIS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 August 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 208
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lakkis (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Saccardo, 8 September 2014)

---

CRIME – Application for extension of time to elect to renew application for leave to appeal – Out of time by a matter of days – Extension of time unopposed – Application granted – No point of principle.

CRIME – Sentence – Traffick in a large commercial quantity – Seven years six months’ imprisonment – Sentence unremarkable – Application refused – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D D Gurvich	Valos, Black & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

On 13 August 2014, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence in an amount not less than a large commercial quantity, the drug being methylamphetamine, and one count of trafficking a drug of dependence, the drug being cocaine.

A plea hearing was conducted on 25 August 2014 and on 8 September 2014 a judge in the County Court sentenced him as follows:

Charges on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Trafficking in a drug of dependence – large commercial quantity
[s 71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981] Life imprisonment
[s 71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981] 7 years
6 months Base

2 Trafficking in a drug of dependence
[s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981] 15 years
[s 71AC of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981] 1 year 6 months

Total Effective Sentence: 8 years

Non-Parole Period: 6 years

Pre-Sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991: 145 days

6AAA Statement: 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years.

Other relevant orders:
Disposal Orders
Forensic Sample Order

The applicant sought leave to appeal his sentence on count 1 and in relation to the total effective sentence and the non-parole period. Leave to appeal was refused on 5 February 2015. The applicant's solicitors received notification of the refusal on 10 February 2015. Affidavits filed on the applicant's behalf by his solicitor indicate that the applicant wished to exercise his entitlement to have his application for leave determined by a Court constituted by two or more judges pursuant to s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

Pursuant to r 2.08(2) of the Supreme Court (Criminal Procedure) Rules 2008 (the ‘Rules’), the applicant had 10 days after receiving notification of the refusal to elect to renew the application by completing and returning the requisite forms. The requisite forms were not returned within that period. They were returned on 12 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 Imad Lakkis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Imad Lakkis v The Queen [2015] VSCA 208
Case: [2015] VSCA 208
Decision Date: 7 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Imad Lakkis, applied to the court for an extension of time to elect to renew his application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Lakkis was found guilty of trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug, for which he was sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The application for an extension of time was opposed by the respondent, The Queen, but only in terms of principle, not on the facts.

The legal issues before the court were whether an extension of time should be granted for Lakkis to elect to renew his application for leave to appeal and whether the sentence was appropriate. The court considered that the application for an extension of time was not opposed on any point of principle, and therefore, the court was satisfied that the application should be granted. The court also considered the sentence imposed on Lakkis and found it unremarkable, and so the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The High Court granted the application for an extension of time for Lakkis to elect to renew his application for leave to appeal, finding that there was no point of principle on which the application should be opposed. The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence imposed was unremarkable. No further orders were made.

Orders