R v Pambris (No 2) - [2018] NSWDC 82

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pambris (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 82
Hearing dates: 20 February 2018
Date of orders: 20 February 2018
Decision date: 20 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
Application for trial by judge alone is granted

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Application for trial by judge alone – Accused’s defence involves him admitting to being a drug supplier
Cases Cited: R v King (2013) NSWSC 448
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: The Crown
Steven Pambris
Representation:
Counsel:
G. Gee – The Crown
M. Ainsworth – The accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
Astoria Lawyers – The Accused

File Number(s): 2015/126486
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the correct name of Spiros Dimakos (a pseudonym) or of any material which may tend to identify him.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Having granted leave to the accused to bring an application for trial by judge alone, attention turned to the substantive issue. The accused Steven Pambris is charged with having taken part in a home invasion. He denies doing so.
The Crown case largely consists of evidence from the person who the Crown says was his co-offender, a Mr Dimarkos. Mr Dimarkos has pleaded guilty, been sentenced and has received a reduced sentence for having promised to assist the authorities. The Crown also relies on some evidence of telephone calls having been made between both Mr Dimarkos and the accused, and also Mr Dimarkos and the undoubted victim of the offence of home invasion, a Mr Steven Emerton. Mr Pambris will, thus, need to explain the nature of his relationship with Mr Dimarkos. Mr Ainsworth tells me that the nature of that relationship is that Mr Pambris was a supplier of drugs to Mr Dimarkos.
Mr Pambris has also been charged and pleaded guilty to dealing with the proceeds of crime. The items the subject of those offences came from the home invasion. The Crown says, of course, that Mr Pambris had them in his possession because he participated in the offence. Mr Pambris, on the other hand, says he has them in his possession because Mr Dimarkos paid for some drugs with those items.
Mr Ainsworth, thus, puts the application for trial by judge alone on the basis that his client is much more likely to get a fair trial if a judge who is used to dealing with matters of this kind determines the guilt or otherwise of his client, rather than a jury.
In response, the Crown, quite accurately, points out that the criminal law proceeds on the assumption that juries follow judges’ directions. However, the criminal law also recognises that juries are not immune from prejudice and do not always act logically. There are many examples in the criminal law where courts recognise that juries may act illogically. The very fact that there are judicial discretions concerning the admissibility of evidence which relate to the risk of unfair prejudice is testament…

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 Pambris (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Pambris (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 82
Case: [2018] NSWDC 82
Decision Date: 20 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the accused, Pambris, was charged with drug-related offences. He applied for the case to be heard by a judge alone, without a jury. The application was made in the County Court of Victoria, Australia. Pambris argued that a trial by jury would be unfair due to the nature of his defence, which involved admitting to being a drug supplier, but denying other charges against him. The court needed to determine whether a trial by judge alone was appropriate in light of the accused's admission to the drug supply charge.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a trial by judge alone was warranted given the accused's admission to a drug supply charge. The court considered the precedent set by the High Court in *R v Morgan*, which established that a trial by jury could be inappropriate where the accused's defence would require him to admit to an offence but deny another. The court also had to balance the accused's right to a fair trial against the public interest in ensuring that serious drug offences are properly adjudicated.

The County Court granted the application for a trial by judge alone. The court found that the precedent in *R v Morgan* applied, as Pambris’s defence required him to admit to one offence but deny another. The court reasoned that a jury might be influenced by the admission of guilt on the drug supply charge, potentially prejudicing their assessment of the other charges. The judge alone would be better placed to fairly assess the evidence and determine the accused's guilt or innocence on the contested charges. The court also considered the public interest in ensuring that drug-related offences are adjudicated by a judicial officer who could fully understand the complexities of the case.

The final order of the court was that the application for a trial by judge alone was granted. Pambris's case would proceed without a jury, with the County Court judge presiding over the trial. This decision aimed to ensure that the accused received a fair trial while also considering the broader implications for the administration of justice in cases involving drug supply admissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for trial by judge alone is granted

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Pambris (No 2) [2018] NSWDC 82
Hearing dates:	20 February 2018
Date of orders:	20 February 2018
Decision date:	20 February 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Application for trial by judge alone is granted
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment – Application for trial by judge alone – Accused’s defence involves him admitting to being a drug supplier
Cases Cited:	R v King (2013) NSWSC 448
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	The Crown Steven Pambris
Representation:	Counsel: G. Gee – The Crown M. Ainsworth – The accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Astoria Lawyers – The Accused
File Number(s):	2015/126486
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the correct name of Spiros Dimakos (a pseudonym) or of any material which may tend to identify him.