Legal Research
Cases
R v Bucic

R v Bucic

Case [2016] NSWCCA 297 14 December 2016

Criminal Liability

Causation

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bucic [2016] NSWCCA 297
Hearing dates: 30 September 2016
Date of orders: 14 December 2016
Decision date: 14 December 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
Campbell J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Crown appeal allowed;
(2) Quash the acquittal of the respondent by direction of 24 May 2016;
(3) Order a new trial.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against verdict of acquitial directed by trial judge – drug offence – knowingly take part in manufacture of prohibited drug cocaine - A4 paper impregnated with cocaine imported to Australia – whether respondent ‘manufactured’ prohibited drug by separating cocaine from paper – whether a step in “the process of extracting or refining” prohibited drug - final step in realising the prohibited drug as marketable commodity - appeal allowed – new trial ordered
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 24 – principles - judicial precedent - use of interstate decisions – different legislation with similar purpose – use of dictionaries - proper approach
WORDS AND PHRASES – “manufacture” – “process of extracting or refining the prohibited drug” - statutory defintions using “means” and “includes”
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 107
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 305
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ss 3, 6, 24
Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) v Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 45; 239 CLR 27
Beckwith v The Queen (1976) 135 CLR 569
Beqiri v R (2013) 37 VR 219; [2013] VSCA 39
Comcare v Martinez (No 2) (2013) 212 FCR 272; [2013] FCA 439
Corporate Affairs Commission (SA) v Australia Central Credit Union (1985) 157 CLR 201; [1985] HCA 64
FCT v St Huberts Island Pty Ltd (1978) 138 CLR 210
Jolley v Sutton London Burrough Council [2000] 3 All ER 409
McKeagg v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 51
R v Randylle (2006) 95 SASR 574; [2006] SASC 318
R v Thomas (1993) 67 ACrim R 308
Re Avory (2003) 87 SASR 392
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42
Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491; [1963] HCA 11
TAL Life Limited v Sheutrim [2016] NSWCA 68
The Owners of the Ship “Shin Cobe Maru” v Empire Shipping Company Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 503
Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary (online edition)
Oxford Dictionary (online edition)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant Crown)
Robert Bucic (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: S McNaughton SC with G Wright (Crown)
M Thangaraj SC (Respondent)
Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2014/172409
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

25 May 2016

Before:

Judge Flannery SC

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:I agree with Campbell J.
HARRISON J: I agree with Campbell J.

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 Bucic

Details

AGLC: R v Bucic [2016] NSWCCA 297
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date: 14 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bucic, the respondent was charged with drug offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), specifically for knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, cocaine. The respondent was found in possession of A4 paper impregnated with cocaine, which had been imported into Australia. The respondent was acquitted at trial, and the Crown appealed against the verdict, which was directed by the trial judge. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent had ‘manufactured’ the prohibited drug by separating the cocaine from the paper, and if this action constituted a step in "the process of extracting or refining" the drug.

The court examined the statutory definitions within the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) to determine the meaning of "manufacture" and "process of extracting or refining the prohibited drug." The court considered the use of dictionaries, judicial precedent, and the principles of statutory interpretation, including the use of interstate decisions. The court concluded that the respondent’s actions in separating the cocaine from the paper constituted a step in the process of extracting or refining the drug, as it was the final step in realising the prohibited drug as a marketable commodity. The court found that the trial judge should have directed a verdict of guilty, and thus allowed the Crown's appeal, ordering a new trial.

The court's reasoning was based on the statutory definitions and the practical interpretation of the terms "manufacture" and "process of extracting or refining the prohibited drug." The court held that the respondent's actions were integral to the drug trafficking scheme, as they completed the process of extracting the cocaine from the paper, making it ready for sale. The court further noted that the use of dictionaries and judicial precedent, as well as the consideration of similar legislation from other jurisdictions, was appropriate in this context. The court's approach to statutory interpretation was thorough and considered the legislative intent and purpose, as well as the practical application of the terms within the context of the drug trafficking scheme.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered. The respondent would be tried again on the charge of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of a prohibited drug, cocaine. The court's decision clarified the interpretation of "manufacture" and "process of extracting or refining the prohibited drug" within the context of drug trafficking and provided guidance for future cases involving similar offences.

Orders