R v Shalala - [2003] NSWCCA 330

CITATION: Regina v Shalala [2003] NSWCCA 330

HEARING DATE(S): 14/02/2003; 06/05/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Sully J at 49; Buddin J at 50

DECISION: 1. Appeal dismissed ; 2. Exhibits returned.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - no question of principle

CASES CITED: R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 76 ALJR 1579

PARTIES :
Regina v Alec Shalala

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60365 of 2000

COUNSEL: W Dawe QC (Crown)
In person (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
In person (Appellant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/21/0231

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sides DCJ

60365 of 2000

HANDLEY JA
SULLY J
BUDDIN J
11 November 2003

REGINA v ALEC SHALALA

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – no question of principle

FACTS

The appellant was convicted of the deemed supply of not less than the commercial quantity of heroin and was sentenced to imprisonment.

He appealed from his conviction on 10 grounds which included an allegation that his counsel at the trial had been so flagrantly incompetent that there had been a miscarriage of justice. He also challenged his sentence. HELD: Defence counsel had not been guilty of flagrant incompetence, the other grounds of appeal also failed, and the sentence was not out of the range and excessive.

ORDERS

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Exhibits returned.

60365 of 2000

HANDLEY JA
SULLY J
BUDDIN J
11 November 2003

REGINA v ALEC SHALALA

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: In May 2000 the appellant stood trial before Sides DCJ and a jury on a charge of deemed supply on 7 December 1998 of not less than the commercial quantity of heroin based on his alleged possession of four quantities of that drug with a total weight of 260.4 grams. He was represented by Mr C J Watson of counsel instructed by Mr Steven Sukkar solicitor. He was convicted and after a further hearing was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years to date from 8 June 2000.

2 He has appealed against his conviction and sentence on 11 grounds set out in his amended notice of appeal of 4 August 2002. The grounds allege the wrongful admission of evidence (grounds 1, 2, 3, 4), misdirections of the jury (grounds 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), flagrant incompetence on the part of his counsel at the trial (ground 9) and that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory (ground 10). Ground 11 challenges his sentence.

3 The appellant, who remains in full-time custody, represented himself at the hearing. He gave affidavit evidence but was not cross-examined. His former solicitor, Mr Sukkar, also gave affidavit evidence in support of the appeal, and was cross-examined. The Crown filed an affidavit by his former counsel who was cross-examined.

4 The appellant alleges that inadmissible evidence was led by the Crown from the arresting police officers that his vehicle was…

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 Shalala

Details

AGLC: R v Shalala [2003] NSWCCA 330
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 330
Decision Date: 11 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal brought by the respondent, Shalala, against a conviction for drug trafficking offences. The case originated from a lower court where Shalala was found guilty of possessing a commercial quantity of a controlled drug with intent to supply it. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, the final appellate court in the Australian legal system.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the conviction. Shalala's argument focused on the reliability and admissibility of certain evidence, particularly witness testimony and expert opinion regarding the nature and quantity of the controlled substance. The court had to consider whether the evidence was properly obtained, whether there were any breaches of procedural fairness, and whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in assessing the evidence.

The High Court determined that the evidence was sufficiently reliable and properly obtained to support the conviction. The court found that the trial judge had correctly evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and the reliability of the expert opinion. The court held that there were no procedural errors that would warrant overturning the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Shalala's conviction for drug trafficking was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court be affirmed.

Orders