R v Milos

Case [2014] QCA 314

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Milos [2014] QCA 314

PARTIES:

R
v
MILOS, Allen Marcel
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 135 of 2013
SC No 17 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Flanagan J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeal dismissed.1.     

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.2.     

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION – where the appellant was sentenced on 14 different drug related charges – where the appellant relies on eight grounds of appeal; consisting of four grounds of error in permitting the prosecution to adduce evidence; one ground of error in permitting the prosecution to lead evidence; one ground that particular counts should have been severed from the indictment; one ground that there was an error in allowing the jury to have certain evidence; and one ground that there was a miscarriage of justice in that the verdicts of the jury were against the weight of the evidence and otherwise unsafe and unsatisfactory – where there were telephone intercepts – where there were coded messages that were incorrectly dated – where there is handycam evidence recorded by the appellant – where there were various types of drug offences not related to the trafficking charge – where there were problems with the search warrant address – where there was an emergent search and a post-search approval order – where there may have been grounds for an interlocutory ruling regarding the search in the primary trial – where no application was made at trial and whether it is now too late to do so in this Court – where even if the search was unlawful the police were acting in good faith and the evidence could still be admitted – where a third of the jury indicated that they were not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on three separate counts – where the trial judge then gave a Black Direction – whether guilty verdicts were then returned for those counts – whether it was open to the jury to accept the evidence of a witness even though there were manifest difficulties with that evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE –where the appellant challenged the factual basis upon which the sentence proceeded – where the appellant also contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where on appeal submissions were made regarding the factual errors of the primary judge, but little was raised regarding the contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), s 129(1)(c)
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(3)
Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), s 160(1), s 160(3), s 161,…

Continue reading R v Milos

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Milos [2014] QCA 314
Case
[2014] QCA 314
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Milos involved the appellant appealing against his conviction and sentence on 14 different drug related charges. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The appellant's grounds for appeal included errors in evidence admissibility, issues with the search warrant and search process, and dissatisfaction with the jury's verdict. The appellant also appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court was required to decide whether the trial had been conducted fairly, and if the evidence was properly admitted. The court had to consider whether the jury's verdicts were safe and satisfactory, despite some jurors expressing doubt about their certainty. The court also needed to examine whether the sentence was appropriate, considering the appellant's contention that it was excessive and based on factual errors. The court examined whether the evidence of a witness, with apparent difficulties, could still be accepted by the jury.

The court found that there were no substantial errors in the trial process that would warrant a new trial. The court determined that the evidence, despite some issues, was admissible and the jury's verdicts were safe and satisfactory. The court also concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, despite the appellant's contentions. The court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

ORDERS:
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.1.

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.2.

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.