R v Agoris - [2020] NSWDC 535

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Agoris [2020] NSWDC 535
Hearing dates: 31 August, 1, 2 September 2020
Decision date: 04 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:
In respect of the indictment dated 31 August 2020, the Accused is found:-
(1) Guilty of Count 1
(2) Guilty of Count 2

Catchwords:
CRIME – Judge alone trial – Accused charged with two counts of inciting the supply a prohibited drug – One count concerning methylamphetamine – One count concerning buprenorphine – Where the Accused is an inmate at a correctional facility – Where the only fact in issue is whether the Accused incited another to supply drugs – Whether the Accused had the intention to incite where the person approached was an established drug dealer

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 27

Cases Cited:
De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48; (2019) 94 ALJR 100
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507
R v Eade [2002] NSWCCA 257; (2002) 131 A Crim R 390

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christos Agoris (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M. Rollestone (Crown)
Mr D. McMahon (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Eliopoulos Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/40662
Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

The Accused was arraigned before me on 31 August 2020 on 2 counts in an indictment. To all counts he pleaded that he was ‘not guilty.’ The specific counts brought against him allege:-

Count 1: That between 21 December 2018 and 7 January 2019, at Nowra in the State of New South Wales, he did incite Roberto Losco to supply a prohibited drug, namely buprenorphine, the supply of prohibited drugs being an offence under Part 2, Division 2 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Court 2: That between 21 December 2018 and 7 January 2019, at Nowra in the State of New South Wales, he did incite Roberto Losco to supply a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, the supply of prohibited drugs being an offence under Part 2, Division 2 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.

Judge Alone Trial

As this is a judge alone trial, s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (the 1986 Act) requires me to state the principles of law to be applied, as well as findings of fact which are made. Section 133(3) of the 1986 Act states that where the law requires a warning to be given to a jury, I must take the warning into account in dealing with the matter.
I approach these statutory obligations in accordance with the statements made in both Fleming v R1 and Filippou v The Queen. [1]

Directions

1. (1998) 197 CLR 250.

Presumption of innocence

The Accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He has pleaded not guilty to…

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 R v Agoris

Details

AGLC: R v Agoris [2020] NSWDC 535
Case: [2020] NSWDC 535
Decision Date: 04 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Agoris, the defendant was charged with two counts of inciting the supply of a prohibited drug. The first count pertained to methylamphetamine and the second to buprenorphine. The case was heard by a magistrate in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant had the requisite intention to incite another person to supply drugs, given that the person approached was already an established drug dealer.

The court considered whether the defendant's actions demonstrated an intention to incite the supply of the drugs in question. The defendant argued that since the person approached was already involved in drug supply, there was no need to incite them. The prosecution, however, maintained that the defendant's actions were intended to facilitate the supply chain, regardless of the recipient's prior involvement. The court found that the defendant's intention to incite was clearly established by the evidence, and that the prior involvement of the person approached did not negate the defendant's intent.

Based on the evidence presented, the magistrate concluded that the defendant had indeed incited the supply of the prohibited drugs. The court found the defendant guilty on both counts. The reasoning focused on the clear intention demonstrated by the defendant's actions, which aligned with the legal definition of incitement. The court's decision was grounded in the principle that intention to incite can exist independently of the recipient's prior involvement in drug supply activities.

The orders of the court were that the defendant was found guilty on both counts of the indictment dated 31 August 2020. This decision will have implications for the defendant's sentencing and potential penalties under the relevant drug supply laws.

Orders

Orders of the court

In respect of the indictment dated 31 August 2020, the Accused is found:-

(1) Guilty of Count 1

(2) Guilty of Count 2

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Agoris [2020] NSWDC 535
Hearing dates:	31 August, 1, 2 September 2020
Decision date:	04 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:	In respect of the indictment dated 31 August 2020, the Accused is found:- (1) Guilty of Count 1 (2) Guilty of Count 2
Catchwords:	CRIME – Judge alone trial – Accused charged with two counts of inciting the supply a prohibited drug – One count concerning methylamphetamine – One count concerning buprenorphine – Where the Accused is an inmate at a correctional facility – Where the only fact in issue is whether the Accused incited another to supply drugs – Whether the Accused had the intention to incite where the person approached was an established drug dealer
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 27
Cases Cited:	De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48; (2019) 94 ALJR 100 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; (2015) 256 CLR 47 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 R v Eade [2002] NSWCCA 257; (2002) 131 A Crim R 390
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Christos Agoris (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M. Rollestone (Crown) Mr D. McMahon (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Eliopoulos Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/40662
Publication restriction:	N/A