R v Hortis - [2004] VSCA 143

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 294 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ANTONIOS HORTIS

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BATT and NETTLE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 August 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 August 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 143

---

Criminal Law - Trafficking - Unrepresented litigant - Whether judge erred in failing to discharge jury after accomplice gave evidence of applicant's criminal propensities - Whether verdict unsafe.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person

WINNEKE, P.:

The applicant, Antonios Hortis, was in September 2002 tried and convicted in the County Court at Melbourne on one count of trafficking in cocaine, contrary to s.71 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981. That trafficking was alleged to have occurred on 2 September 1999. The count on which the applicant was convicted was count 2 on a presentment, namely C0001794, which contained two counts. Count 1 was a count alleged solely against Ulysses Kokkinos and count 2 alleged the offence of trafficking cocaine jointly against Kokkinos and the applicant, Hortis. The applicant and Kokkinos, following their conviction, were remanded for sentence. The applicant requested that the judge deal with him for three other offences committed at or about the same time but charged on a further presentment, namely presentment P01230496, and to which offences alleged thereon the applicant had made an early plea. The offences alleged on that presentment were possessing substances for the purposes of trafficking in methylamphetamine (count 1), trafficking in pseudoephedrine (count 2) and trafficking in methyl-amphetamine (count 3).

On 25 October 2002 the judge sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment on count 2 of the first presentment (trafficking in cocaine) and to sentences of one year, two years and two years respectively on counts 1, 2 and 3 of the second presentment. His Honour then cumulated the one year imposed on count 1 of the second presentment upon the five years imposed on the offence of trafficking in cocaine (count 2 on the first presentment). It followed that the total effective sentence imposed upon the applicant was one of six years. His Honour fixed a period of four years before the applicant would become eligible for parole. The applicant has informed us this morning that he has served nearly two years of that sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed in respect of the offence of trafficking in cocaine charged as count 2 on the first presentment to which I have referred. The hearing of these applications has, unfortunately, been delayed for some time because the applicant has been unable to secure legal representation. He appears before us today in person and has been assisted by an interpreter whom the Court has duly sworn.

I would like to point out to the applicant that the fact that he is unrepresented does not necessarily mean that…

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 Hortis

Details

AGLC: R v Hortis [2004] VSCA 143
Case: [2004] VSCA 143
Decision Date: 16 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hortis involved the respondent, Hortis, who was charged with trafficking and related offences. Hortis appeared in court without legal representation and was convicted following a jury trial. Hortis appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in not discharging the jury after one of the accomplices provided evidence of Hortis's criminal tendencies, which he argued rendered the verdict unsafe and unreliable. The appeal hinged on whether the judge's handling of the evidence and direction to the jury was appropriate and whether the verdict was tainted by improper considerations.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge made an error in not discharging the jury after an accomplice's testimony regarding Hortis's criminal propensities. The court had to determine if such evidence was improperly admitted and whether it influenced the jury's decision. Additionally, the court examined whether the judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure that any consideration of Hortis's criminal history was appropriately weighed in the context of the charges at hand. The court was tasked with deciding if the verdict was safe and sound, free from any prejudicial influence stemming from the accomplice's testimony.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in allowing the accomplice's evidence concerning Hortis's criminal tendencies. The court held that such evidence was relevant to establishing Hortis's involvement in the criminal activity and was properly considered by the jury. The judge's direction to the jury was deemed adequate to ensure that the evidence was appropriately assessed. The court concluded that the verdict was safe and reliable, as it was based on the totality of the evidence presented, and not solely on Hortis's criminal history. The appeal was thus dismissed, and Hortis's conviction was upheld.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the conviction. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that evidence of a defendant's criminal history is properly contextualised and weighed by the jury, but also affirmed the principle that such evidence can be relevant and admissible in criminal trials.

Orders