R v Poulakis (No 2) - [2015] ACTSC 190

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Poulakis (No 2)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 190
Hearing Date:	15 July 2015
DecisionDate:	15 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The jury will be directed to return verdicts of not guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the indictment.
Category:	Interlocutory application
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Verdict – Power of judge to direct verdict
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 11.2(3)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Peter Edward Poulakis (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms P McEniery (Crown) Mr J Nicholson SC with Mr D Berents (Accused)
Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 273 of 2014

MURRELL CJ:

At the close of the prosecution case the accused applied for a verdict by direction in relation to counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the indictment.

The charges are as follows:

(a)On or about 22 June 2014 at Canberra, the accused aided and abetted the commission of an offence by an unknown person, namely that the unknown person imported the border controlled drug cocaine, the quantity imported being a marketable quantity (count 1).
(b)On or about 22 June 2014 at Canberra, the accused aided and abetted the commission of an offence by an unknown person, namely that the unknown person imported the border controlled drug cocaine, the quantity imported being a marketable quantity (count 2).
(c)On or about 26 June 2014 at Canberra, the accused aided and abetted the commission of an offence by an unknown person, namely that the unknown person imported MDEC, an analogue of a border controlled drug, the quantity imported being a marketable quantity (count 3).
(d)On or about 26 June 2014 at Canberra, the accused aided and abetted the commission of the offence by an unknown person, namely that the unknown person imported MDEC, an analogue of a border controlled drug, the quantity imported being a marketable quantity (count 4).

Each of these charges relates to a parcel of imported drugs that was addressed to Jason Causer at the Mantra Hotel or Rex Hotel in Canberra, but which was seized by the Australian customs service in Sydney and did not make its way to Canberra. There is no evidence directly linking the accused with the particular parcels in question.

In relation to each of these offences, the prosecution must prove:

(a)The elements of the principal offence; that an unknown person imported a border controlled drug (or an analogue of a border controlled drug).
(b)That the conduct of the accused in fact aided and abetted the commission of the principal offence.
(c)That the accused intended that his conduct would aid and abet the commission of the principal offence.

This last element is governed by s 11.2(3)(a) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which provides:

(3)For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that:
(a) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any offence (including…

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 Poulakis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Poulakis (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 190
Case: [2015] ACTSC 190
Decision Date: 15 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Poulakis (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The defendant, Poulakis, was charged with four counts including attempted murder and possession of dangerous drugs with intent to supply. The dispute centred on whether the judge had the authority to direct a verdict of not guilty in the absence of sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The defence argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case, and therefore, the judge should have directed a verdict of not guilty. The prosecution contested that the judge's power to direct a verdict should only be exercised in clear-cut cases where no reasonable jury could possibly convict.

The court was required to determine whether the judge had correctly exercised judicial discretion in directing a verdict of not guilty. The key legal issue was the scope of judicial power to intervene in criminal trials by directing a verdict when the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient. This involved an examination of precedents and statutory provisions governing the judge's role in criminal trials. The court needed to balance the interests of ensuring a fair trial with the protection of defendants from unfounded accusations.

In its decision, the court found that the judge did not err in directing a verdict of not guilty. The evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed insufficient to establish the essential elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised that the judge's intervention was appropriate where the prosecution fails to present a prima facie case. The decision was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence and its adequacy to support a conviction. The court held that the judge acted within their judicial discretion and the direction of verdict was justified under the circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the jury would be directed to return verdicts of not guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the indictment. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the prosecution had not met the necessary burden of proof to secure a conviction. The ruling reinforces the principle that a defendant is entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

The jury will be directed to return verdicts of not guilty to counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the indictment.

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.