R v Stavrinos - [2003] NSWCCA 339

Reported Decision:
140 A Crim R 595

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Stavrinos [2003] NSWCCA 339

HEARING DATE(S): 11 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1; Greg James J at 27; Miles AJ at 28

DECISION: Allow the appeal. Quash the convictions and direct the entry of verdicts of acquittal.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - accused's right to silence - whether breached by Crown Prosecutor's closing address - whether consequent direction appropriate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act s8

CASES CITED: Petty and Maiden v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95
King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423

PARTIES :
Regina
Anthony Stavrinos

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60399/03

COUNSEL: Applicant: S J Odgers SC
Crown: D C Frearson

SOLICITORS: Applicant: R Day
Crown: S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/1145

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington ADCJ

060399/03
BARR J
GREG JAMES J
MILES AJ

Tuesday, 9 December 2003

R v Anthony STAVRINOS

Judgment

1 BARR J: The appellant Anthony Stavrinos appeals against convictions entered in the District Court and seeks leave to appeal against the resulting sentences. On 23 April 2002 the jury found him guilty of supplying the drug 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) also known as ecstasy, on each of two occasions. On 6 June 2003 Shillington QC ADCJ sentenced him to two concurrent terms of imprisonment, each for two years with a non-parole period of one year.

2 The first occasion was late at night on 24 January 2002. The police had been watching the appellant for some time and followed him to a car park at the Spit. Another car arrived at that place at about the same time. The appellant and the driver of the other car got out of their cars and walked a little distance and spoke. The other driver re-entered his car and drove away. The police did not stop him. They spoke to the appellant and searched his car. They found quantities of two drugs in the car, namely 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), or Ecstasy and 3,4 methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), or Speed. The amount of Ecstasy exceeded the trafficable quantity, but the amount of Speed was less than the trafficable quantity.

3 Over the next few hours the police searched the house where the applicant was living. In his bedroom they found further quantities of prohibited drugs and a number of resealable plastic bags. They also found a briefcase containing several envelopes, each containing amounts of cash. The total sum so found exceeded $17,000. Also in the briefcase were Ecstasy and Speed, a number of resealable plastic bags and a number of manilla folders containing the appellant’s personal papers.

4 The amount of Ecstasy found in the appellant’s bedroom exceeded the trafficable quantity. The Speed weighed less than the trafficable quantity.

5 It was the Crown contention that the appellant possessed all the quantities of drug for supply. There were thus four charges, two relating to the Ecstasy found in…

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 Stavrinos

Details

AGLC: R v Stavrinos [2003] NSWCCA 339
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 339
Decision Date: 9 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stavrinos, the defendant faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Stavrinos was accused of serious criminal offences, and the case centred around the alleged breach of the defendant's right to silence by the Crown Prosecutor's closing address. The court was required to determine whether the prosecutor's comments had indeed breached this fundamental right and, if so, whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was appropriate in light of this alleged breach.

The legal issues that arose from this case were centred around the interpretation and application of the defendant's right to silence. The court had to consider whether the prosecutor's comments during the closing address were an impermissible comment on the defendant's exercise of this right. If such a breach was found, the court then needed to evaluate the adequacy of the trial judge's direction to the jury in response to this alleged breach, to ensure that any potential prejudice was adequately addressed.

The court concluded that the prosecutor's comments did indeed breach the defendant's right to silence, as they suggested that the defendant's silence could be considered as an admission of guilt. However, the court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient to mitigate any prejudice caused by this breach. The court held that the direction effectively reminded the jury of the defendant's right to silence and cautioned them against drawing any adverse inferences from this silence. Consequently, the court determined that the trial's outcome was not affected by the breach, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the confirmation of the conviction. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of preserving the defendant's right to silence and the need for careful consideration by both prosecutors and judges to ensure that this right is not inadvertently compromised during a criminal trial.

Orders