R v Popa - [2002] QCA 252

[2002] QCA 252

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA

CA No 65 of 2002

THE QUEEN
v.
COSTICA POPA	Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/07/2002

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appellant appeals against his conviction for the offence of carrying on the business of unlawful trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin in Cairns and elsewhere between the 1st of April 1999 and the 20th of January 2000.

He was imprisoned for 13 years, and also in a formal sense seeks leave to appeal against sentence - formal in that no ground is nominated.

The Crown case against the appellant was a mixture of direct and circumstantial evidence. The most potentially powerful incriminating evidence of a direct nature came from two witnesses recruited by the appellant to make sales.

Seicean was recruited in November 1999. The appellant provided him with heroin packaged in freezer-type plastic bags. They used a coffee grinder to powder the heroin, originally in rock form. They mixed it with salts and packaged it in 7-gram lots. They placed the heroin in jars which they concealed in the ground at various locations including Yorkeys Knob and Centennial Park. When a customer telephoned Seicean he would get the heroin from a jar, supply it and provide the money to the appellant. The price was $3,000 per 7-gram bag.

Seicean who worked under the name Dave gave evidence of regular sales to a number of people named Karen, Jacqui and Steve. The other recruit was Popescu. In May 1999 the appellant recruited him to sell heroin over a period of a week. He in fact ended up selling over a period of three weeks. This heroin also came from jars buried in the ground.

Popescu operated from bushland behind what became the TAFE college at Cairns. He paid amounts totalling $40,000 over to the appellant in respect of that period. His customers were named Michael, Shaun, Kevin and Melinda.

The other direct evidence came from purchasers of the heroin. Three of them gave evidence. Karen Faust dealt with Dave in 1999. She sometimes recovered heroin from a hole in the ground and left money in its place. Although she said she did not purchase heroin directly from the appellant, she identified the appellant from a police photo board as one of the people with whom she was dealing.

Jacqueline McReaddie purchased in 1999 from Dave, Michael and Con. Con was the person the Crown presented as being the appellant. She purchased heroin over a few months at Barron River Bridge, Yorkeys Knob and Centennial Park. She selected the appellant from a photo board as one of the men with whom she dealt.

The third purchaser to give evidence, Russell James, gave evidence of 20 to 25 purchases over a few months for prices ranging from $500 to $2,000 per supply. He purchased from the appellant at the car park of the TAFE college.

The circumstantial case comprised a number of components. Perhaps the most significant was evidence that…

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 Popa

Details

AGLC: R v Popa [2002] QCA 252
Case: [2002] QCA 252
Decision Date: 22/07/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Costica Popa appeals against his conviction for carrying on the business of trafficking in the dangerous drug heroin in Cairns and elsewhere between April 1, 1999, and January 20, 2000. The Crown case against Popa comprised both direct and circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence came from two witnesses recruited by Popa to make sales, Seicean and Popescu, who testified about their involvement in the drug sales, including packaging, pricing, and distribution. The circumstantial evidence included Popa's access to substantial funds despite not being in lawful employment and evidence of his involvement in drug-related activities. The trial judge appropriately directed the jury on the need for careful assessment of the evidence given the nature of the witnesses' involvement in criminal activity.

Popa argues that the conviction is unsafe due to inconsistent testimony from convicted witnesses, improper jury instructions, and prejudicial media coverage. The court found that while there were inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies, these did not render the conviction unsafe. The court also found that the judge's instructions to the jury were appropriate and that there was no prejudicial media coverage. The court further found that the evidence of Seicean and Popescu, along with the purchasers' testimonies, provided powerful incriminating evidence that supported the conviction.

Regarding the sentence, Popa was sentenced to 13 years in prison. The court found that this sentence was within the appropriate range for someone who ran a heroin trafficking business over a substantial period, recruited operators, and netted substantial sums of money. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders