Legal Research
Cases
Lazaris v R

Lazaris v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 163 18 August 2014

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lazaris v R [2014] NSWCCA 163
Hearing dates: 8 August 2014
Decision date: 18 August 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Adamson J at [2]
Bellew J at [4]
Decision:
(i) Leave to appeal upon ground 2 is refused;
(ii) Leave to appeal on ground 1 is granted;
(iii) The appeal is dismissed;
(iv) The applicant is to be returned to custody forthwith.
(v) Having regard to the period of custody served by the applicant between 16 August 2013 and 17 December 2013 the applicant's non-parole period will expire on 17 December 2015.
(vi) The applicant will be eligible for parole on 18 December 2015 and his sentence will expire on 17 February 2017.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Offence of supplying prohibited drug - Trial before judge alone - Where Crown relied on circumstantial case - Where trial judge satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of applicant's guilt - Whether verdicts unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence
EVIDENCE - Where hearsay representations admitted without objection - Where trial judge relied upon representations as evidence of the truth - Whether open to the trial judge to do so - Whether evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in any event
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Appeal Rules
Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
Gonzales v R [2007] NSWCCA 32; (2007) 178 A Crim R 321
Libke v R [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 230 CLR 559
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487
Papakosmas v R [1999] HCA 37; (1999) 196 CLR 297
Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Peter Lazaris - Applicant
Crown - Respondent
Representation: Counsel:
P Lange - Applicant
S Dowling SC - Crown
Solicitors:
Aquila Lawyers - Applicant
S Kavanagh Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown

File Number(s): 2011 / 209088
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-05-02 00:00:00

Before:

Huggett DCJ

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Bellew J.

ADAMSON J: I have had the benefit of reading the draft reasons of Bellew J. I agree with the orders proposed. As to the first ground of appeal, I have reviewed the whole of the evidence and considered the respects in which there was competing evidence. I agree that it was open on the whole of that evidence for the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of the three counts of supplying a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, to Mr Poliopoulos contrary to s 25(1) of the Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW).

As to the…

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 Lazaris v R

Details

AGLC: Lazaris v R [2014] NSWCCA 163
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 163
Decision Date: 18 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lazaris was charged with the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, a charge which he denied. The case proceeded to trial before a judge sitting alone. The Crown's case relied solely on circumstantial evidence, and Lazaris was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment. Lazaris appealed against the conviction and sentence on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable or alternatively that it could not be supported by the evidence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence and whether the trial judge was entitled to rely on hearsay representations which had been admitted without objection and which had been relied upon by the trial judge as evidence of the truth. The court also considered whether the hearsay evidence was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the trial judge had been correct to find that the verdict was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on the hearsay representations as evidence of the truth, even though they had been admitted without objection. The court further held that the hearsay evidence was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed Lazaris' appeal against his conviction and sentence. The court held that the trial judge had been correct to find that the verdict was both reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court also held that the trial judge was entitled to rely on hearsay representations as evidence of the truth, and that the hearsay evidence was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Orders