KOUSHAPPIS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 146

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 146
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Case No:	CCA:206/2002	Heard:	22 APRIL 2003
Coram:	TEMPLEMAN J WHEELER J HASLUCK J	Delivered:	27/06/03
No of pages:	13	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANDREW CHRIS KOUSHAPPIS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against conviction Whether satisfactory explanation for delay in bringing appeal Significance of lack of formal authority for police undercover officer
Legislation:	Criminal Code, s 24 Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 31, s 39
Case References:	Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54 Koushappis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 18 Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173 Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19 Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195 Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259 Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KOUSHAPPIS -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 146 CORAM : TEMPLEMAN J

WHEELER J

HASLUCK J

HEARD : 22 APRIL 2003 DELIVERED : 27 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CCA 206 of 2002 BETWEEN : ANDREW CHRIS KOUSHAPPIS

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against conviction - Whether satisfactory explanation for delay in bringing appeal - Significance of lack of formal authority for police undercover officer

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 24

Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA), s 31, s 39

Result:

Application for leave dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Mr T F Percy QC & Mr N J Mullany

Respondent : Mr S E Stone

Solicitors:

Applicant : McKenzie Lalor

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54
Koushappis v The Queen [2001] WASCA 18
Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173
Ridgeway v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19

Case(s) also cited:

Gavin v The Queen (1991) 6 WAR 195
Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259
Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510
Suresh v The Queen (1998) 153 ALR 145

(Page 3)

1 TEMPLEMAN J: On 30 May 2000, after a trial by Judge and jury in the Supreme Court sitting at Kalgoorlie, the applicant was convicted of three offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981. Two offences, being counts 1 and 2 on the indictment, involved the applicant selling quantities of heroin to an undercover officer authorised pursuant to s 31 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, by a delegate of the Commissioner of Police. The third offence, being count 3, involved the applicant having in his possession a quantity of heroin with intent to sell or supply to another.

2 The applicant was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on each of counts 1 and 2,…

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 Koushappis v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Koushappis v The Queen [2003] WASCA 146
Case: [2003] WASCA 146
Decision Date: 27 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Koushappis, was convicted of various offences and sought to appeal the conviction. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal was brought in a timely manner and whether there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Additionally, the court had to consider the significance of the fact that the undercover police officer involved in the case lacked formal authority, which had implications for the admissibility of evidence obtained through entrapment.

The court found that the appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of timeliness in appeals and noted that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify the delay. Furthermore, the court determined that the lack of formal authority for the undercover officer did not render the evidence inadmissible. The court held that the officer's status did not impact the voluntariness of the appellant's actions, and therefore, the evidence remained admissible.

Given the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the admissibility of the evidence, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning and outcome of the case underscore the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in criminal appeals and the limited impact of an undercover officer's lack of formal authority on the admissibility of evidence obtained through entrapment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.