R v Sinanovic - [2000] NSWCCA 397

CITATION: R v SINANOVIC [2000] NSWCCA 397

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60023/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Hakija Sinanovic

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Hulme J at 2; Greg James J at 62

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0597

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : McGuire DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: M Grogan
Appellant: In person

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: In person

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

- 22 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60023/99
WOOD CJ at CL
HULME J
GREG JAMES J

Monday, 11 December 2000

Regina v Hakija SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT
1    WOOD CJ at CL: I have read the reasons for judgment of Hulme and Greg James J, and agree with the orders proposed.
**********
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60023/99

WOOD CJ AT CL
HULME J
GREG JAMES J

Monday, 11 December 2000

REGINA -v- Hakija SINANOVIC

JUDGMENT

2    HULME J: These proceedings are the fifth of 5 appeals brought by the Appellant against convictions in the District Court. Although represented in 2 of the appeals by Mr Coombs of counsel, who appeared for the Appellant in the trial which was the subject of this appeal, the Appellant was not formally represented in the appeal with which these Reasons are concerned. Again Mrs Sinanovic was allowed to speak on the Appellant’s behalf although he himself also addressed the Court on some matters.
3 The relevant conviction occurred on 13 January 1999 and was in respect of a charge that, on 11 December 1995, at Sydney the Appellant did dishonestly obtain for himself a diamond ring by deception viz by representing that he would on that day deposit into the bank account of Stefano Designer Jewellery Pty Ltd a cheque for $27,000.00. The charge is one provided for under s178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 which prescribes a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. On 5 March 1999 Judge McGuire sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for a minimum term of 16 months commencing on 16 May 2003 - the date after a previous sentence imposed by Judge Horler is due to expire - and an additional term of 12 months commencing on 16 September 2004.
4    In the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, the grounds of appeal are stated as follows:-

1. Trial by ambush
2. Trial without instructions.
3. No preparation.
4. Denied assistance.
5. Interference with jury members and crown.
6. Improper orders regarding defence’s witness evidence.
7. Prejudice and discrimination.

5    In support of the appeal the court was provided with a page of written submissions which are impossible to summarise and therefore best to quote verbatim. This I have done. For convenience I have grouped these further submissions and numbered the groups as if they were additional grounds of appeal.

“8.

· Trial by ambush.
· Denied natural justice
· Denied right not to be tried unfairly.
· Forced on notwithstanding the Crown failed to comply…

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 Sinanovic

Details

AGLC: R v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 397
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 397
Decision Date: 11 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sinanovic, the appellant, Hakija Sinanovic, was convicted in the District Court of dishonestly obtaining a diamond ring by deception. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered several grounds of appeal, including issues related to the trial process and the judge's handling of the case. The appellant's claims primarily revolved around alleged procedural errors and perceived biases by the trial judge. The appeal court examined each ground of appeal and found them to be without merit. The court determined that the trial was conducted fairly, and the judge's actions were within their discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders