R v Muradian - [2002] NSWCCA 371

CITATION: R v Muradian [2002] NSWCCA 371

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60881/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Armine Nishan Estefo Muradian

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Simpson J at 30; Bell J at 31

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 01/11/0815

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Luland DCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant - P R Zahra SC
Respondent - R Bromwich

SOLICITORS: Appellant - Director, Legal Aid Commission
Respondent - Commonwealth Director DPP

CATCHWORDS: No question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Bahri Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502
Pereira v DPP (1988) 63 ALJR 1

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

60881/01
DC 01/11/0815

HANDLEY JA
SIMPSON J
BELL J

Tuesday 27 August 2002

REGINA v ARMINE NISHAN ESTEFO MURADIAN

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: The appellant stood trial on an indictment charging that on 26 May 2001 at Sydney she did import into Australia prohibited goods to which s 233B of the Customs Act applied, namely a quantity of ecstasy tablets comprising 452.9 grams of the pure product, which was not less than a trafficable quantity.

2 She was convicted and the learned trial Judge sentenced her to a head sentence of 5 years and 3 months after allowing the discounts provided for in s 16G of the Commonwealth Crimes Act. He fixed a non-parole period of 3½ years and ordered that she be eligible for parole from 25 November 2003.

3 She has appealed challenging her conviction and sentence. The sole ground of appeal is that the learned trial Judge erred in law in directing the jury as to the mental elements of possession required on a charge of importing a prohibited import.

4 The case was a circumstantial one. The appellant made no direct admissions of her knowledge of the contents of the suitcase she attempted to bring into this country.

5 The learned trial Judge correctly directed the jury at p 9 of his summing-up that they had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the importation and that this had two components to it, the physical fact of the importation and the knowledge by the person said to have been responsible.

6 There was no issue about the physical fact of the importation. The real issue, as the trial Judge told the jury, was whether the accused knew that she was importing a prohibited import. He continued:

“To do that she must be shown by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt to have had actual knowledge that she did import a trafficable quantity of the Ecstasy or that she knew or was aware there was a real and significant likelihood that what she imported was a prohibited import.”

7 The Judge then told the jury that the Crown had a circumstantial case and had submitted to the jury that when this…

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 Muradian

Details

AGLC: R v Muradian [2002] NSWCCA 371
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 371
Decision Date: 27 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of R v Muradian, which involved a charge of murder. The appellant, Muradian, was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial. The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts and whether this error was so significant as to necessitate a new trial.

The court examined the principles of admissibility of evidence, particularly focusing on the relevance and prejudicial effect of the evidence in question. The court considered whether the evidence of prior bad acts was relevant to proving a material fact in issue and whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court also assessed whether the error in admitting this evidence was so substantial that it could have affected the outcome of the trial. Ultimately, the court determined that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence and that the error, if any, did not materially affect the verdict.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The High Court held that the evidence was properly admitted and that any error did not undermine the fairness of the trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the admission of evidence does not unfairly prejudice the defendant but also that relevant evidence should not be excluded if it contributes to establishing a fact in issue. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment be upheld.

Orders