NICULESCU -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 126

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 126
Court:	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL	Published:	11/06/2004
Case No:	CCA:141/2003	Heard:	17 FEBRUARY 2004
Coram:	WHEELER J MCKECHNIE J EM HEENAN J	Delivered:	17/02/04
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DIONISIE NICULESCU THE QUEEN SAMUEL GHINEA
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction Lies direction Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 Mule v The Queen [2004] WASCA 7 Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234 Davis v The Queen (1991) 5 WAR 269 Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473 Houghton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 20 Maniaci v The Queen [2000] WASCA 195 Narkle v The Queen [2003] WASCA 233 R v Grein [1989] WAR 178 Winmar v The Queen [2001] WASCA 239

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : NICULESCU -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 126 CORAM : WHEELER J

MCKECHNIE J

EM HEENAN J

HEARD : 17 FEBRUARY 2004 DELIVERED : 17 FEBRUARY 2004 PUBLISHED : 11 JUNE 2004 FILE NO/S : CCA 141 of 2003 BETWEEN : DIONISIE NICULESCU

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

FILE NO/S : CCA 143 of 2003 BETWEEN : SAMUEL GHINEA

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

(Page 2)

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : FENBURY DCJ

File Number : IND 1827 of 2001

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Lies direction - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: B

Representation:

CCA 141 of 2003

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr J J Scudds

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms S E Wisbey

Solicitors:

Appellant : Porter Scudds

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

(Page 3)

CCA 143 of 2003

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr D Grace QC

Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms S E Wisbey

Solicitors:

Appellant : Cannon Bowden & Co

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

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

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Mule v The Queen [2004] WASCA 7
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234

Case(s) also cited:

Davis v The Queen (1991) 5 WAR 269
Giorgianni v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 473
Houghton v The Queen [2004] WASCA 20
Maniaci v The Queen [2000] WASCA 195
Narkle v The Queen [2003] WASCA 233
R v Grein [1989] WAR 178
Winmar v The Queen [2001] WASCA 239

(Page 4)

1 WHEELER J: On 17 February 2004 this Court allowed the appeals of both Niculescu and Ghinea against their convictions in respect of one count of possession of heroin with intent to sell or supply. The Court ordered that the appellants be retried in relation to that indictment. These are my reasons for allowing the appeals.

2 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 Niculescu v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Niculescu v The Queen [2004] WASCA 126
Case: [2004] WASCA 126
Decision Date: 11 JUNE 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved a defendant, Niculescu, against the Crown, represented by The Queen. The dispute centred around the defendant's conviction for certain criminal charges. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, the apex court in the Australian judicial system.

The legal issues before the court centred on the trial judge's direction to the jury regarding the defendant's lies. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the judge's direction was legally sound and whether it appropriately aligned with the evidence and the law. The crux of the matter was whether the lies direction was sufficiently tailored to the unique facts of the case, or if it was overly general and potentially prejudicial.

The court found that the trial judge's direction was indeed too general and did not sufficiently account for the specific circumstances and evidence presented. The lies direction was not tailored to the unique facts of this case, which led to potential unfairness. As a result, the court concluded that the error was material, meaning it could have influenced the jury's decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.