R v Kardoulias - [2005] NSWCCA 150

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Kardoulias [2005] NSWCCA 150

FILE NUMBER(S):
60242/04

HEARING DATE(S): 16 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 22/04/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Spiros Kardoulias

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Adams J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0047

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) P Boulten SC
(C - Cwth) G Bellew

SOLICITORS:
(A) Hardin Law
(C) Commonwealth DPP

CATCHWORDS:
Conspiracy to import prohibited drug (heroin) - Verdict was reasonable and amply supported by the evidence - open to a jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Customs Act 1901

DECISION:
Appeal against conviction dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60242/04

WOOD CJ at CL
ADAMS J
SMART AJ

Friday, 22 April 2005

Regina v Spiros KARDOULIAS

JUDGMENT

WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Smart AJ. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.
ADAMS J: I agree
SMART AJ: Spiros Kardoulias appeals against his conviction of a charge that between about 5 August 2001 and about 4 April 2002 at Sydney he conspired with Rafael Leonardo Andres, Raed El Akkaoui, Petros Kastellorizos, Rivadavia and others to import into Australia prohibited imports to which s 233B of the Customs Act 1901 applied, to wit, narcotic goods being not less than the trafficable quantity applicable to heroin. Kastellorizos and the appellant were tried together. The former was acquitted. It was his case that he was not a party to any agreement to import heroin into Australia, rather he was a messenger or an errand boy or a lackey for his cousin, the appellant. The appellant also seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, namely 13 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 8 years 6 months, contending that it is too severe.
The Crown has appealed against the alleged inadequacy of the sentence imposed. Both sentence appeals were stood over to be determined at a later date.
There is one ground of appeal against conviction, namely, that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence. It is contended that the jury, acting reasonably, ought to have entertained a reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt because the evidence was incapable of convincing a reasonable jury that there was no reasonable hypothesis consistent with the appellant's innocence of the conspiracy charged against the appellant as particularised at the trial.
While the ground of appeal necessitates careful consideration of the whole of the evidence, a brief outline of the facts follows:
The importation which resulted from the conspiracy involved a parcel being shipped through FedEx (Federal Express), an international freight forwarding company. The parcel was lodged at FedEx's Hong Kong depot and included in its container which was transported by air from Hong Kong to Sydney. In the normal course the parcel (unopened) would be delivered to 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 Kardoulias

Details

AGLC: R v Kardoulias [2005] NSWCCA 150
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 150
Decision Date: 22 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal prosecution against an individual, Kardoulias, who was charged with conspiracy to import a prohibited drug, specifically heroin. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court, which provided a verdict based on the evidence presented during the trial. The primary issue that the court had to address was whether the verdict reached by the jury was reasonable and sufficiently supported by the evidence, ensuring that the accused's guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

The court considered the evidence presented during the trial and assessed whether it was adequate for a jury to convict Kardoulias of the conspiracy charge. The court examined the reliability and weight of the evidence, including any testimonies, documents, and other relevant materials that were presented. The central legal issue was to determine if the jury's verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Kardoulias' guilt.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence thoroughly and found that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Kardoulias was involved in the conspiracy to import heroin. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, as it allowed the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Kardoulias' guilt. The court also noted that it was within the jury's purview to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, and that the verdict was a proper outcome based on the materials presented.

The court's decision affirmed the verdict reached by the jury, confirming that it was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The court held that the jury was entitled to find Kardoulias guilty of the conspiracy charge, as the evidence allowed them to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. The final orders of the court would likely involve the enforcement of the conviction and any subsequent sentencing that was determined by the court.

Orders