R v Saffo

Case [2023] NSWDC 182

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saffo [2023] NSWDC 182
Hearing dates: 30 January 2023 – 02 February 2023 & 07 February 2023
Date of orders: 19 May 2023
Decision date: 19 May 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:

Find the accused guilty of the offence charged

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:

Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25

Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250

Harriman v The Queen [1989] HCA 50; (1989) 167 CLR 590

He Kaw The v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523

HG v The Queen [1999] HCA 2

Jackwitz v R; Franklin v R [2006] NSWCCA 419

Maric v The Queen (1978) 52 ALJR 631

Meakin v R [2018] NSWCCA 288

Mogilevsky v R [2010] NSWCCA 92

R v Agic NSWCCA, 18 May 1992, unreported

R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400

R v Bayden-Clay [2016] HCA 35

R v Bazeley (CCA, 23 March 1989, unreported

R v Dib (1991) 52 A Crim R 64

R v Filippetti (1984) 13 A Crim R 335

R v GNN [2000] SASC 447

R v Sobolewski (CCA, 21 April 1998, unreported)

Shepherd v the Queen [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573

Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Zeki Saffo (accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
Paul Leask (Crown Prosecutor)
Daniel McMahon (Counsel for the accused)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Eliopoulos Lawyers (accused)
File Number(s): 2021/00182259

JUDGEMENT on verdict

Introduction

  1. On Monday 30 January 2023 Zeki Saffo appeared for trial in the District Court, Sydney upon an indictment alleging an offence of supplying a commercial quantity of the prohibited drug gamma butyrolactone contrary to s 25(2) Crimes Act 1900.

  2. The accused elected to have the trial before a judge alone pursuant to s 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to which the Director of Public Prosecutions agreed. The election form signed by the accused and on behalf of the Director became Exhibit A in the trial. His Honour Judge Hunt made the order for the trial to proceed so, upon the Notice of Motion presented in his court before the trial was allocated.

  3. The Crown submitted that the foundation for the agreement of the Crown to the trial proceeding before a judge alone arose from the admissibility of evidence of recorded telephone conversations between the accused and Vural Can, and CCTV recording the two of them associating with each other between 9 September 2020 and 11 October 2020. The evidentiary purpose of the evidence [1] , and impermissible use [2] , were the subject of submissions.

    1. Evidence negating innocent association, probative of joint possession of the prohibited substance averred on indictment, and indicative of acting in concert in the supply of the prohibited drug.

    2. Evidence of tendency to commit the offence on…

Continue reading R v Saffo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Saffo [2023] NSWDC 182
Case
[2023] NSWDC 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Saffo, the appellant, Saffo, was convicted of an offence by a judge alone in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. Saffo appealed the conviction on the basis that the trial judge had not adequately provided reasons for his decision. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the trial judge's failure to provide reasons amounted to a failure to observe a fundamental rule of procedural fairness. The appeal raised questions about the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge and whether the lack of reasons rendered the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal examined the transcript of the trial and the reasons provided by the trial judge. The court noted that the trial judge had provided a brief summary of the evidence and had made findings of fact that were supported by the evidence. However, the court also noted that the trial judge had not provided a detailed explanation of how he arrived at his decision. The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide detailed reasons did not amount to a failure to observe a fundamental rule of procedural fairness. The court noted that the trial judge was not required to provide reasons in the same detail as a court of appeal, and that the reasons provided were sufficient to enable the court to understand the basis of the decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient to enable the court to understand the basis of the decision and that the failure to provide more detailed reasons did not amount to a failure to observe a fundamental rule of procedural fairness. The court further held that the conviction was supported by the evidence and that there were no errors of law or procedure that warranted interference with the conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Find the accused guilty of the offence charged

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.