R v Scaunasu and Voros

[1993] QCA 49

[1993] QCA 049

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA

McPHERSON JA

THE QUEEN

v.

STELIAN SCAUNASU and

ECATERINA VOROS

BRISBANE
..DATE 26/02/93

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: We have before us two applications for leave to appeal against sentence. They were not argued separately so that it is convenient to deal with them together in the one set of reasons. They involve the case of a Mr Scaunasu and someone with whom he was acquainted, Ecaterina Voros.

Scaunasu was convicted of trafficking in a dangerous drug which was heroin, 14 counts of supply of heroin and also possession of property used in connection with the commission of the offence of supplying a dangerous drug. There were two charges in the last- mentioned category.

The sentences imposed in his case were, 12 years’ imprisonment in respect of the trafficking and the Judge did not distinguish in respect of the supply but imposed 12 year terms in each case. He imposed five year terms of imprisonment in respect of the possession of property. He recommended eligibility for parole after four years.

Scaunasu had some previous criminal history. It was not extensive. There were cases of dishonesty but nothing involving drugs and he had not been sentenced previously to any term of imprisonment. He was arrested as a result of an undercover operation. He pleaded guilty it should be stated. He had been introduced to an undercover agent and he, in a number of the transactions in which he was involved, was so involved with Voros.

On 14 occasions in a little over a month Scaunasu sold the agent various quantities of powder which analysed at over 16 grams on a pure basis and the consideration was a sum of $32, 500 approximately. The applicant Scaunasu was dealing with an undercover agent but not showing any particular reluctance in his willingness to supply. He spoke of travelling to Melbourne and also to Ipswich to obtain more heroin. He also mentioned having

supplied heroin to another person.

On three occasions, it is convenient to mention that Scaunasu was in company with Voros when the offences of supply were committed.

When Scaunasu was absent from Brisbane the agent then dealt with Voros and she was separately charged in respect of those offences. Counsel who appears on behalf of Scaunasu refers to features relevant in the case from his client’s point of view.

He relies on the guilty plea and he submits that Scaunasu was a middle man who received limited financial reward for his participation and he suggested - and I have already dealt with this to an extent - that the undercover agent induced the commission of offences. As against that as I have mentioned Scaunasu seemed to show no unwillingness to fill the role of supplier.

Voros to whom I shall now turn was convicted again of trafficking and supplying a dangerous drug, there being 12 charges under that heading, again possession of property used in connection with the commission of the offence of supplying a dangerous drug and possession of a dangerous drug in excess of quantity specified in the third schedule. In each case the reference is to heroin.

The sentences imposed in the case of Voros were: nine years in respect of the trafficking and supply, five years for the possession of property and no sentence was imposed in respect of the possession charge. It was recommended in her case that she be eligible for parole after serving three years of her sentence.

She had no prior criminal history.

The Judge in sentencing in both cases - that is, both Scaunasu and Voros - ordered that the sentences imposed run from the dates in which the both applicants had been taken into custody. The same order was made in respect of the parole orders. That means that judged by the standard that used to operate under the now older system, there’s not an exact comparison with sentences imposed in the past. Due allowance has to be made for the fact that the terms are, compared with higher sentences, some what reduced and the parole situation somewhat improved.

In respect of Voros counsel on her behalf refers to the relationship between the applicant Voros and Scaunasu and suggests that an aspect of it which reduces culpability operates because of the applicant’s involvement, as it would appear to be implied, because of her connection with Scaunasu. Her counsel also points out that she gained little if anything from the moneys received form the offences and seemed to give it to Scuanasu. Again reference is made to the time spent by the appicant on remand but, as I have already stated, the sentencing Judge took that into account in a way which, to him, seemed appropriate. In the case of Voros the total amount of pure heroin involved was 10.76 grams and the payment to the agent was the sum of $21, 000.

The sentencing Judge made a number of observations in the course of dealing with the matter. He referred to Scaunasu as acting in the character of a middle man between a supplier whom he named and the undercover policeman. He noted that Scuanasu was not involved in the trade as one who had a habit which was compelling his participation. He was doing it simply for the money because he wanted to fund his family who were abroad. Both Scaunasu and Voros are immigrants to this country from Romania.

The Judge, however, expressed his view that Scaunasu occupied a significant and important part in the distribution of large quantities of heroin. He stated that he regarded it as a bad case which must attract a significant custodial penalty. He specifically stated that he took into account the plea of guilty, and that he proposed to date the term which he was ordering from the date of being taken into custody, a matter which I have already mentioned.

Dealing with Voros, the sentencing Judge observed that she appeared to feel under some sort of obligation to Voros because of their association in the past in Romania. He again took into account her plea of guilty. He stated that he regarded her criminality as somewhat less than that of Scaunasu. Voros had no prior convictions. And he took into account the fact that Voros really made nothing out of her part in the operation.

We were referred to a number of comparative sentences, the cases
of Elhusseini and Elsahili, 136 and 137 of 1991, Court of Appeal
cases; Eid, Court of Appeal number 222 of 1990; Hapeta 283 of
1990; and Confery and Jones are mentioned as 285 and 293 of 1990
respectively; and a further case of Abdo, which is CA no.186 of

1991. We have had regard to the penalties imposed in those

cases, and it is appropriate that we should do so.

It seems to me whatever is said on behalf of the present two applicants, when one takes into account the terms that were ordered, and not overlooking the fact that the terms and the parole period were expressed to operate from the dates when the applicant were taken into custody, it cannot be said that the sentences imposed in either of the present two cases are manifestly excessive. In my opinion the application should, in each case, be dismissed.

PINCUS JA: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applications are dismissed.