R v Bujora - [2001] QCA 310

[2001] QCA 310

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
BYRNE J

CA No 78 of 2001

THE QUEEN

GEORGE BUJORA Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/08/2001

JUDGMENT

BYRNE J: After a trial, the appellant was convicted of carrying on a business of unlawfully trafficking in heroin between 1 June and 13 October 1999.

He appeals against the conviction. His notice of appeal states only one ground: that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Leave is also sought to appeal against the sentence as "manifestly excessive".

The appellant has argued additional grounds in respect of the conviction before us.

English is not his native language, but his written submissions are quite comprehensible. Before us today, he has made additional oral submissions with no more than very occasional assistance from an interpreter.

The absence of an interpreter at the trial is nonetheless made a matter of complaint. The appellant says in his written submissions that he did not understand a lot of the things that happened at the trial and therefore could not advise his lawyers appropriately.

The appellant was interviewed by police twice. The interviews were recorded. They disclose an adequate comprehension of the English language. The appellant apparently understood the questions put to him, and responded as he wished, in English.

At the trial he testified, again without an interpreter. The transcript of proceedings suggests that a fair trial was not put at risk by the circumstance that English is not his first language. That impression is amply confirmed by his oral submissions today.

Then there is a complaint concerning the appellant's voluntary absence from the trial for a portion of the afternoon on the first day.

The appellant was standing his trial for a crime, not a misdemeanour. So he ought not to have been permitted to be absent during part of the trial: contrast section 617(4) of the Criminal Code.

The question now, however, is whether this irregularity has occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant had fallen ill, requiring medical attention. The Judge asked whether the appellant was content for the trial to proceed while medical attention was sought. He also inquired whether the appellant's experienced counsel was "comfortable" that he had sufficient instructions to cross-examine witnesses who might be called in the meantime.

His counsel was content with the proposal. The Judge informed the jury that the accused had consented to leaving for a while to get medical attention after having obtained the advice of his legal adviser "while witnesses who are less controversial", as the Judge described them, were called to testify.

The trial then proceeded for the balance of the afternoon in the absence of the appellant.

There is nothing to suggest that a fair trial was put at risk through the irregularity.

The witnesses who were called while the appellant was absent spoke of his having purchased airline tickets to Vienna in 1999 for cash, and of having bought a car in January 2000 for a little more than $12,500 cash.…

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 Bujora

Details

AGLC: R v Bujora [2001] QCA 310
Case: [2001] QCA 310
Decision Date: 02/08/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bujora was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, George Bujora, was convicted of carrying on a business of unlawfully trafficking in heroin between 1 June and 13 October 1999. Bujora appeals against the conviction and sentence, arguing that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Bujora claims that he did not understand much of the trial proceedings due to the absence of an interpreter, and that he was absent from the trial for a portion of the afternoon on the first day due to illness. The court was required to decide whether the absence of an interpreter and Bujora's absence from the trial caused a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found that Bujora's absence from the trial for a portion of the afternoon did not cause a miscarriage of justice. Bujora had fallen ill and required medical attention, and the trial proceeded in his absence with the consent of Bujora and his counsel. The Court also found that Bujora's absence of an interpreter did not prejudice him, as he understood the questions put to him during police interviews and testified at the trial without an interpreter. The Court further found that Bujora's complaints about the evidence of certain witnesses and the sentence imposed were not well founded. The evidence against Bujora was strong, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The conviction and sentence imposed on Bujora were upheld.

Orders