R v Grech - [2001] VSCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 285 of 2000

THE QUEEN

MARIO PETER GRECH

---

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 October 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 192

---

Criminal law – Trafficking in heroin – Possession for sale – Applicant discovered in motel room with heroin displayed and equipment for selling – Applicant convicted despite evidence from the occupant of the room that the drug and the equipment were hers – Applicant’s later reliance upon “fresh evidence” to support the occupant – Whether truly “fresh evidence” – Application to extend time for seeking leave to appeal against conviction refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	K. Robertson Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.	Patrick W. Dwyer

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

This is an application for extension of time within which to lodge notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction. The application was refused by Master Gaffney on 9 February 2001 and subsequently the applicant filed notice of election to have his application determined by the Court of Appeal.

The applicant pleaded not guilty in the County Court to a presentment containing one count of trafficking in heroin and, in the alternative, being in possession of heroin on 14 May 1999. On that day he was apprehended in a motel room in Bendigo, standing at a bench on which, in front of him, was a set of electronic scales which were switched on and bore a weight reading. Next to the scales was an open plastic bag containing a small spoon and 14 grams of white powder containing heroin, a large quantity of cut squares of freezer bag plastic, nine 0.1 gram quantities of white powder containing heroin, each wrapped in cut squares of freezer bag plastic, and four plastic bags each containing a further ten 0.1 gram quantities of white powder containing heroin, separately wrapped. There were also two mobile telephones on the bench. The applicant, when interviewed, declined to answer questions relating to the alleged offending. On 19 May the sum of $2,600 in cash was found by a hotel guest in a drawer in the same room of that motel.

The applicant was apprehended in a room which had been allocated to one Ravarotto who had checked into the motel about one and a half hours earlier. Not long after the applicant was apprehended, Ravarotto and a friend, one Harbridge, were arrested as they were coming back to the motel. In the course of the trial one of the policemen who gave evidence stated that Ravarotto was a known user of heroin who engaged in trafficking to support her own habit and, upon the close of the Crown case, the applicant, who in the end did not himself give evidence, called Ravarotto to give evidence. She said that she had booked the room for the purpose…

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 Grech

Details

AGLC: R v Grech [2001] VSCA 192
Case: [2001] VSCA 192
Decision Date: 25 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Grech, the applicant, Grech, was convicted for trafficking in heroin and possession for sale. The conviction arose from a discovery of heroin and selling equipment in a motel room, with Grech present. Despite the occupant of the room claiming ownership of the drugs and equipment, Grech was convicted. Grech later sought to introduce what he claimed was "fresh evidence" to support the occupant's claim, but the court found this evidence to be insufficiently new to warrant an extension of time for an appeal. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the evidence was truly fresh and whether the time for seeking leave to appeal against the conviction should be extended.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented by Grech could be considered "fresh" under the law, and if so, whether this justified extending the time limit for seeking leave to appeal. The court considered the nature and timing of the evidence in relation to the original trial and appeal process. The court had to balance the need for finality in legal proceedings against the potential for new evidence to provide a fair opportunity for the applicant to challenge his conviction.

The court concluded that the evidence presented by Grech did not meet the criteria for being considered "fresh." The evidence had been available or known to Grech at the time of the original trial and appeal, and thus it was not truly new. The court found that the evidence was not sufficiently compelling or novel to warrant an extension of time for an appeal. As a result, the application to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal against the conviction was refused. The court emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need to prevent the unnecessary prolongation of litigation.

The final orders of the court were that the application to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant, Grech, remained in place, and no extension of time for an appeal was granted.

Orders