SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Markovski [2009] QCA 299
PARTIES:
R
v
MARKOVSKI, Cele
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 110 of 2008
SC No 180 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
9 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 September 2009
JUDGES:
Keane and Fraser JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS – STATEMENTS – STATEMENTS BY AGENTS – ACTS AND DECLARATIONS IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON PURPOSE – GENERALLY – where appellant convicted upon jury verdict of two counts of trafficking in a dangerous drug and one count of possession of a dangerous drug – where evidence of telephone conversations between third parties using euphemisms for drugs admitted against appellant in furtherance of shared common purpose – where appellant argues Crown failed to establish shared common purpose – whether evidence admissible against appellant
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where appellant sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years for the trafficking offences and six years for the possession offence – where appellant argued sentence manifestly excessive – where appellant tendered affidavits containing evidence available at trial purporting to refute use of euphemisms for drugs in evidence of telephone conversations admitted against appellant – whether tendered affidavits should be received – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; [1936] HCA 23, cited
R v Elizalde [2006] QCA 330, cited
R v Kelly [2005] QCA 103, cited
R v Klasan [2007] QCA 268, cited
R v Omer-Noori [2006] QCA 311, cited
R v Slivo [2007] QCA 64, cited
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22, consideredCOUNSEL:
A J Glynn SC, with R Bonnici, for the appellant/applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Carne Reidy Herd for the appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
KEANE JA: On 5 March 2008 the appellant was convicted upon the verdict of a jury of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cocaine, one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ("ecstasy"), and one count of possession of the dangerous drug cocaine. These offences were committed in contravention of the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld).
On 6 March 2008 the appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years for each of the trafficking offences and six years for the possession offence. The trafficking offences were declared to be serious violent offences. The effect of these sentences is that the appellant is obliged to spend 12 years in actual custody before he becomes eligible for parole.
The appellant seeks to appeal…
Continue reading R v Markovski
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Markovski [2009] QCA 299
- Case
- [2009] QCA 299
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the evidence of the telephone conversations was properly admitted as it pertained to acts and declarations in furtherance of a common purpose. The court found that the Crown had established a shared common purpose among the parties involved, which included the appellant. As such, the evidence was relevant and admissible under the principles of joint criminal enterprise. The court also rejected Markovski's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range for the crimes committed.
The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found no grounds for interference with the conviction or the sentence. The court concluded that the evidence was properly admitted and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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.