R v Stasi & Makris - [2005] SASC 241

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v STASI & MAKRIS
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Anderson)
1 July 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Appellants pleaded guilty to charge of knowingly producing cannabis - first appellant pleaded guilty and second appellant pleaded not guilty to further charge of possession of cannabis for purpose of selling it to another - second appellant convicted by jury on the further charge.
Appeal against conviction by second appellant on further charge of possession of cannabis for purpose of selling it to another - whether the trial judge misdirected the jury as to the use that could be made of co-accused's pleas of guilty against the second appellant - certificate of record disclosing co-accused's pleas of guilty were admitted by consent and used to the advantage of the second appellant - the association between two appellants was an important matter for consideration by the jury - no suggestion in remarks of trial judge of guilt by association - appeal against conviction dismissed
Appeal against sentence by appellants on both charges - whether sentences manifestly excessive and should have been suspended - emphasis placed on evidence of good character, age and successful rehabilitation of appellants - deterrence assumes importance in case of drug offences motivated by financial gain - personal circumstances are relevant but not as important in such circumstances - sentences not manifestly excessive and no error in decision of trial judge not to suspend the sentences - appeals against sentence dismissed.
R v Cowell (1985) 24 A Crim R 47; R v Mangelsdorf (1995) 66 SASR 60, applied.
R v Spokes [1999] VSCA 210; R v Nai Poon [2003] NSW CCA 42, discussed.

R v STASI & MAKRIS
[2005] SASC 241
Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Bleby and Anderson JJ

DUGGAN J. The appellants pleaded guilty in the Adelaide Magistrates Court to knowingly producing cannabis on 24 August 2002 at Forestville. This charge alleged the production of four plants. A further charge alleged that the appellants were in possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling it to another. Mr Stasi pleaded guilty to the second charge in the Magistrates Court and was committed for sentence on both charges. Mr Makris pleaded not guilty to the second charge, but was found guilty by verdict of a jury.
Mr Makris has appealed against his conviction by the jury and both appellants have appealed against sentence.
The charges arise out of a police raid on a house at Forestville on 24 August 2002. The appellants were renting the property at the time of the visit…

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 Stasi & Makris

Details

AGLC: R v Stasi & Makris [2005] SASC 241
Case: [2005] SASC 241
Decision Date: 1 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stasi & Makris involved two appellants who were convicted of drug-related offences. The first appellant pleaded guilty to knowingly producing cannabis, while the second appellant pleaded not guilty to the same charge and an additional charge of possessing cannabis with intent to sell. The second appellant was ultimately convicted on the latter charge by a jury. The second appellant appealed against the conviction on the charge of possession with intent to sell, arguing that the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the use of the co-accused's guilty plea against him. The court found that the judge did not suggest guilt by association and dismissed the appeal against the conviction.

The appellants also appealed against their sentences, arguing that they were manifestly excessive and should have been suspended. The court considered the evidence of good character, age, and successful rehabilitation of the appellants, but emphasised that deterrence was particularly important in cases of drug offences motivated by financial gain. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge's decision not to suspend the sentences was not erroneous. Therefore, the appeals against sentence were dismissed.

Orders