Medici v The Queen - [2013] VSCA 111

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0089

VINCENZO MEDICI	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	HARPER, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	19 March 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	14 May 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 111
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 14 February 2011 (Conviction), Judge Chettle

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Appellant convicted on one count of trafficking a drug of dependence, namely methylamphetamine, contrary to section 71AC of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 – Whether the judge erred by impermissibly dictating the sequence of the jury’s deliberations – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Lewenberg & Lewenberg
For the Crown	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions`

HARPER JA:

I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the judgment of Priest JA. I agree with his Honour that the appellant has suffered no substantial miscarriage of justice, and that the appeal should be dismissed. I differ from his Honour in only one respect; and it is a difference not so much of substance as in emphasis. But if that difference is to be understood, it is necessary to deal briefly with the facts and the issues – both of which have been examined in more detail in his Honour’s judgment, to which I am greatly indebted.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in methylamphetamine, which is well known as a drug of dependence. The prosecution case was based upon evidence obtained as a result of telephone intercepts, together with the discovery of very large quantities of drugs and other substances in the possession either of the appellant himself or of associates of his. One possible use to which these substances, some themselves drugs of dependence, could be put was in the manufacture of methylamphetamine, which the prosecution have identified as the drug of principal concern. His defence was that the chemicals were to be employed for innocent purposes: for industrial cleaning, or in the manufacture of herbicides and pesticides.

The presentment contained 11 counts. Positioned above the other ten was count 1. It alleged simply that, between 1 August 2007 and 28 May 2008, the appellant trafficked in methylamphetamine.

Of the remaining 10 counts, eight were alternatives to count 1. As examples, counts 2 and 4 alleged that the appellant on a day specified in the count possessed a drug of dependence (respectively, phenylacetic acid and propiophenone) for the purpose of trafficking in that drug. Each of phenylacetic acid and propiophenone, however, is also a precursor for the manufacture of methylamphetamine; and counts 3 and 5 therefore alleged that the appellant possessed the phenylacetic acid or propiophenone, as the case may be, as a prescribed precursor chemical in not less than the prescribed quantity. In these circumstances, the Crown was content, upon the appellant’s conviction for trafficking in methylamphetamine, to allow these counts to fall away.

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 Medici v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Medici v The Queen [2013] VSCA 111
Case: [2013] VSCA 111
Decision Date: 14 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Medici was convicted by a jury of trafficking a drug of dependence, specifically methylamphetamine, in contravention of section 71AC of the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. He appealed against his conviction, arguing that the judge had erroneously directed the jury's deliberations by suggesting a specific sequence of steps. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was whether the judge's direction to the jury amounted to an error that could have affected the fairness of the trial. The court had to determine if the judge's instructions were within the bounds of acceptable judicial guidance or if they amounted to an improper dictation of the jury's decision-making process. This involved a careful examination of the language used by the judge and its potential impact on the jury's independence.

The court held that the judge's directions did not constitute an error that warranted overturning the conviction. It was found that the judge's language, while perhaps not ideal, did not coerce the jury into following a specific sequence in a manner that compromised the trial's fairness. The court emphasised that while judges must be cautious in their instructions to avoid influencing the jury unduly, minor deviations in phrasing do not necessarily result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Medici's conviction was upheld.

Orders