R v Chronopoulos - [2018] ACTSC 290

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chronopoulos
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 290
Hearing Date:	28 September 2018
DecisionDate:	28 September 2018
ReasonsDate:	26 October 2018
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [70].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PRE-TRIAL APPLICATION – application to adjourn trial date – cross application to stay proceedings until costs of accused are paid – unfairness to applicant – conditional stay of proceedings granted
Cases Cited:	Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20; 241 CLR 237 Glennon v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 1 Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR 23 Petroulias v R [2007] NSWCCA 154; 176 A Crim R 302 R v Bui [2011] ACTSC 102; 5 ACTLR 230 R v Fisher [2003] NSWCCA 41; 56 NSWLR 625 R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173; 120 A Crim R 512 R v Spadina [2013] NSWSC 4 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509 Zonneveld v The Queen (No 2) [2018] ACTCA 31
Parties:	The Queen (Applicant) Dimitri Chronopoulos (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Walker (Applicant) Mr W Terracini SC with Mr D Berents (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant) Kamy Saeedi (Respondent)
File Numbers:	SCC 327 of 2017; SCC 328 of 2017

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

This was an application by the prosecution to adjourn the accused’s trial, which was set down for 8 October 2018. The accused at the hearing applied for an order staying the proceedings until the prosecution pays associated costs.

Chronology

As a result of a controlled police operation targeting drug trafficking, Mr Robert Masling and Mr Joel Lemmon were arrested in October 2016. In Mr Lemmon’s record of interview, he identified Mr Dimitri Chronopoulos (the accused) as the supplier of drugs he gave to Mr Masling that were then on-sold to an undercover police officer (UCO). Mr Lemmon and Mr Masling both pleaded guilty, and have been sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court.

The accused was summonsed to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court on 3 July 2017 in respect to one charge of dealing with proceeds of crime and three charges of trafficking in a controlled drug other than cannabis.

On 3 July 2017 a plea of not guilty was entered to all four charges and the accused’s matter was adjourned to 11 September 2017 for a pre-hearing mention.

On 11 September 2017, the charges were adjourned to 6 October 2017.

On 6 October 2017, the charges were adjourned to 2 November 2017, so that the prosecution could obtain outstanding brief documents.

On 11 October 2017, solicitors representing the accused emailed the prosecution requesting that they provide certain evidence that had not been included in the initial brief of evidence.

Also on 11 October 2017, the prosecution sent an email to the informant that asked for a number of mobile phone and telephone intercept (TI) materials to be provided for disclosure, particularly those intercepted between the accused, Mr Joel Lemmon, Mr Robert Masling and 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 R v Chronopoulos

Details

AGLC: R v Chronopoulos [2018] ACTSC 290
Case: [2018] ACTSC 290
Decision Date: 28 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chronopoulos involved a pre-trial application in the criminal law context, specifically focusing on the request to adjourn the trial date. Chronopoulos applied to adjourn the trial, and in response, the prosecution cross-applied to stay the proceedings until Chronopoulos's costs were paid. The application centred on the unfairness faced by Chronopoulos if the trial proceeded without an adjournment, given the financial burden imposed on him. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial should be adjourned or if the proceedings should be stayed until Chronopoulos paid his costs.

The legal issues before the court included the discretion available to adjourn a trial under the relevant statutes and the criteria for staying proceedings due to unpaid costs. The court considered the principles of fairness and the impact of financial constraints on the accused's right to a fair trial. It was necessary to balance the interests of justice with the procedural requirements of the criminal law, particularly the right to a timely trial and the financial obligations of the accused.

The court, after thorough consideration, granted a conditional stay of the proceedings. This decision was based on the principle that fairness required addressing Chronopoulos's financial inability to pay his costs before proceeding with the trial. The court found that staying the proceedings until the costs were paid was necessary to ensure a fair trial. The stay was conditional, allowing the trial to proceed if the costs were paid by a specified date. This decision recognised the importance of financial fairness while upholding the principles of criminal justice.

The final orders included a conditional stay of the proceedings until Chronopoulos paid his costs, with a specified date for the trial to proceed if the costs were not paid by then. This outcome aimed to ensure that Chronopoulos could participate effectively in his defence without being unduly prejudiced by financial constraints.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [70].

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.