R v Chilnicean - [2016] QCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chilnicean [2016] QCA 26

PARTIES:

R
v
CHILNICEAN, Ilie
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 41 of 2015
SC No 426 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 13 March 2015

DELIVERED ON:

16 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 October 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, an offence against s 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 13 March 2015 – where, at the commencement of the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the appellant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 18 March 2015, subsequently abandoning the application for leave to appeal against sentence on 23 October 2015 – where the appellant alleged the learned trial judge erred by admitting evidence of transcripts of conversations captured by a listening device thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice – where the appellant submitted the learned trial judge erred by admitting evidence of the appellant’s interest in a media article about a drug dealer – where the appellant alleged the guilty verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – whether the transcripts of the conversations were inadmissible and therefor a miscarriage of justice ensued – whether the learned trial judge was obliged to exclude the evidence of the appellant’s interest in a media article about a drug dealer – whether an inference beyond reasonable doubt can be drawn that the appellant was a trafficker in heroin

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(a)

R v BCU[2014] QCA 292, cited
R v Gallagher [1998] 2 VR 671, cited

COUNSEL:

S C Holt QC for the appellant
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: At a trial over seven days in the Supreme Court in Brisbane, the appellant, Ilie Chilnicean, was found guilty on 13 March 2015 of an offence against s 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld) in that between 23 September 2011 and 26 August 2012 at Parkinson or elsewhere in Queensland, he carried on the business of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug, heroin, (Count 1). At the commencement of the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty to a second count on…

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 Chilnicean

Details

AGLC: R v Chilnicean [2016] QCA 26
Case: [2016] QCA 26
Decision Date: 16 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chilnicean, the appellant was convicted of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, an offence under section 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld). The conviction was handed down by the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 13 March 2015. At the start of the trial, the appellant had pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful possession of methylamphetamine. Subsequently, on 18 March 2015, the appellant lodged a notice of appeal against the conviction and applied for leave to appeal against the sentence. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was later abandoned on 23 October 2015.

The central issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence derived from transcripts of intercepted conversations and whether the judge should have excluded evidence relating to the appellant's interest in a media article about a drug dealer. The appellant argued that these errors led to a miscarriage of justice and that the guilty verdict was unreasonable. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the transcripts of the conversations were inadmissible and if the trial judge was obliged to exclude the evidence regarding the media article. Additionally, the court examined whether there was sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt to infer that the appellant was involved in trafficking heroin.

The court thoroughly reviewed the evidence and concluded that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence in question. The court found that the evidence was properly admitted under the relevant legal criteria and that the appellant's interest in the media article did not prejudice the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction of the appellant for trafficking in heroin.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Chilnicean [2016] QCA 26
PARTIES:	R v CHILNICEAN, Ilie (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 41 of 2015 SC No 426 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 13 March 2015
DELIVERED ON:	16 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 October 2015
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of unlawfully trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin, an offence against s 5(a) of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 13 March 2015 – where, at the commencement of the trial, the appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the appellant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 18 March 2015, subsequently abandoning the application for leave to appeal against sentence on 23 October 2015 – where the appellant alleged the learned trial judge erred by admitting evidence of transcripts of conversations captured by a listening device thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice – where the appellant submitted the learned trial judge erred by admitting evidence of the appellant’s interest in a media article about a drug dealer – where the appellant alleged the guilty verdict of the jury was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – whether the transcripts of the conversations were inadmissible and therefor a miscarriage of justice ensued – whether the learned trial judge was obliged to exclude the evidence of the appellant’s interest in a media article about a drug dealer – whether an inference beyond reasonable doubt can be drawn that the appellant was a trafficker in heroin Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 5(a) R v BCU[2014] QCA 292, cited R v Gallagher [1998] 2 VR 671, cited
COUNSEL:	S C Holt QC for the appellant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent