R v Poulakis (No 3) - [2015] ACTSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Poulakis (No 3)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 191
Hearing Date:	15 and 17 July 2015
DecisionDate:	17 July 2015
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The jury will be directed to return verdicts of not guilty on counts 5 and 6 in the indictment.
Category:	Interlocutory application
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Particular offences – drug offences – statutory construction – extrinsic material
Legislation Cited:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 15AA, 15AB Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Act 2012 (Cth) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 11.2(1), 301.4, 301.9, 301.9(2), 307.2(1), 314.1(2), 314.4(2) Criminal Code Regulations 2002 (Cth) schs 3, 4
Cases Cited:	Barr v Farrell (2013) 45 WAR 530 Brirek Industries Pty Ltd v McKenzie Group Consulting (Vic) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 165 Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378 R v Lavendar (2005) 222 CLR 67 R v Poulakis (No. 2) [2015] ACTSC 190 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252
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:

Introduction

The accused was arraigned on six counts of aiding and abetting the commission of an offence by an unknown person, namely import a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to ss 11.2(1) and 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). Each count related to a specific date between 22 June and 8 August 2014. Counts 1 and 2 corresponded with the arrival in Australia from overseas of packages containing cocaine. Counts 3 to 6 corresponded with the arrival in Australia from overseas of packages containing MDEC. Each package was addressed to “Jason Causer” at a Canberra hotel. The prosecution alleged that, by the time that the first package arrived in Australia, the accused had assumed the fake identity of “Jason Causer” in order to collect the packages.

Counts 1 to 4 related to packages that were intercepted by the Australian customs service at Sydney and never made their way to Canberra. In relation to each of those counts, I directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty because there was no evidence that the accused believed that the relevant packages were en route to Canberra, and no evidence that, as at June 2014 (counts 1 to 4 related to June 2014), the accused knew that any drug package addressed to “Jason Causer” contained imported (as opposed to local) drugs: R v Poulakis (No. 2) [2015] ACTSC 190.

Counts 5 and 6 allege that the accused aided and abetted the importation of a marketable quantity of the border controlled drug MDEC by arranging and attempting to collect a package from the Mantra Hotel on Northbourne Avenue, Canberra.

In relation to each count, the prosecution says that MDEC is a…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Poulakis (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 191
Case: [2015] ACTSC 191
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Poulakis (No 3) involved the defendant, Poulakis, who was on trial for various drug-related offences. The dispute centred around the interpretation of certain statutory provisions related to drug trafficking and possession. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction. The primary issue before the court was the correct interpretation of the relevant drug laws, specifically concerning the application of certain provisions in the context of the charges brought against Poulakis. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, taking into account the statutory interpretation.

The court examined the statutory provisions in question and considered the legislative intent behind them. It was necessary to determine whether the language of the statutes was clear and unambiguous or if it required reference to extrinsic materials for proper interpretation. The court also considered the context in which the legislation was enacted and any relevant case law that might shed light on the proper construction of the provisions. The key issue was whether the jury should be directed to return verdicts of not guilty on counts 5 and 6 of the indictment based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions.

After careful consideration of the statutory language, legislative history, and relevant case law, the court determined that the statutory provisions in question were ambiguous. Consequently, the court found that it was appropriate to refer to extrinsic materials to ascertain the legislative intent. Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt on counts 5 and 6 of the indictment. Therefore, the court ordered that the jury be directed to return verdicts of not guilty on those counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

The jury will be directed to return verdicts of not guilty on counts 5 and 6 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.